Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

I.T.A. (Programmes)

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give a direction under Section 9 (2) of the Television Act, 1954, requiring the Authority to refrain from broadcasting more than a defined proportion of drama depicting physical violence.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): No, Sir.

Dr. Thompson: Will the Minister bear in mind on this matter that television authorities have a much greater responsibility than other forms of entertainment. that we can go to the cinema or theatre at choice, but that television has unrestricted access to millions of homes, containing children of all stages of education and degrees of impressionability?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, indeed; but the Question asked me if I will use my power under Section 9 (2). That is a reserve power which has never been used for this purpose.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that Associated Rediffusion has already issued a directive to its producers along the lines of the suggestion in this Question? Will he invite the Independent Television Authority to have regard to that directive, and to see how far it can be expressed to the other programme contractors?

Mr. Bevins: I am perfectly sure that the I.T.A. is constantly vigilant in this matter, and both the B.B.C. and I.T.A. are currently studying the Report of the Nuffield Study Group.

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Independent Television Authority is in breach of its statutory obligations under Section 3 (1) (d) of the Television Act, 1954, in that it permits the broadcasting of more than a proper proportion of items not of British origin or performance; and what steps he is taking in this regard.

Mr. Bevins: As the Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative, the second part of the Question does not arise.

Dr. Thompson: May I ask the Minister to bear in mind that there is a good deal of material in the British classics—Dickens, Robert Louis Stevenson, John Buchan and so on—which are part of our national heritage, which, if successfully adapted in the form of drama, can provide the excitement and dramatic possibilities which the children need of a much higher quality than senseless gangster films—to give one example, the B.B.C.'s excellent production of Bleak House—and that it is this sort of entertainment and drama to which we should be giving our attention?

Mr. Bevins: Of course, I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman says; but I think we should also bear in mind that many of the English classics, from Treasure Island to Macbeth, are also a pretty bloodthirsty business.

Television (Third Programme)

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give an assurance that any third television service will be allocated to some form of public corporation.

Mr. Bevins: I cannot anticipate the form that a third programme might take, if and when it is introduced.

V.H.F. Service, Sheffield

Mr. Darling: asked the Postmaster-General whether the British Broadcasting Corporation's plans for local very high frequency radio services include a local station for Sheffield; to what extent local interests have been invited to take part in, or advise on, the operations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bevins: With regard to the Corporation's plan for local broadcasting, I fear I cannot add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) on 9th December. The B.B.C. tells me, however, that it will consider the needs of Sheffield for a V.H.F. sound satellite station when it plans the next stage of its scheme for improving and extending its television and V.H.F. sound coverage.

Mr. Darling: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the B.B.C. has been talking along these lines for a long time and that because of the hills in the Sheffield area V.H.F. reception is very bad? Will he make representations to the B.B.C. on behalf of the citizens of Sheffield, who would very much like the B.B.C. to recognise Sheffield for what it is—the sixth largest city in the country?

Mr. Bevins: The B.B.C. hopes to be able to provide a sound satellite station for Sheffield in the second phase of its programme, but I will certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Northern Ireland (Reception)

Mr. Mills: asked the Postmaster-General, in view of the unsatisfactory television reception in certain areas of Northern Ireland, which has led to many complaints, what steps he intends to take to improve the situation.

Mr. Bevins: B.B.C. television already reaches 95 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland, and the Corporation intends to extend its coverage by opening a satellite station in the Enniskillen area. There are, however, areas of poor reception within its coverage due to the lie of the land, and the Corporation will bear these in mind in future plans.
With the opening of the Black Mountain station on 31st October, the I.T.A. service is now within reach of nearly 90 per cent. of the population. The I.T.A. tells me that it hopes to open a station in the Londonderry area later on.

Mr. Mills: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer, but may I ask whether he is aware that there are a number of television black spots in the province, where great difficulty is experienced in obtaining Independent Television reception, although the full licence fee must be paid by the householders in that area?

Mr. Bevins: I am aware of that fact. The I.T.A. is planning a further station for Northern Ireland, in the Londonderry area. I am sorry that I cannot say when this station will be opened.

B.B.C. Charter

Mr. Lipton: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has now decided to renew the present charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation until 1964.

Mr. Bevins: The charter does not expire till 30th June, 1962. There is plenty of time for renewal, and I cannot give any commitment now.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Postmaster-General aware that it would be desirable from every point of view that the charters of the B.B.C. and I.T.A. should expire at the same time, so that the House would have an opportunity of discussing the whole problem in all its aspects? Will he try to speed up a decision in the matter, so that the House may know where it stands?

Mr. Bevins: I am aware of all those considerations, and I can assure the hon. Member that there will be no undue delays.

Leicester (Television Studio)

Mr. Janner: asked the Postmaster-General what would be the cost of providing a television studio of modest dimensions in Leicester; and if, in considering the request for more revenue by the British Broadcasting Corporation, he will ensure that enough is given to cover this additional charge.

Mr. Bevins: The location and cost of the B.B.C.'s studios are matters for the Corporation to settle in relation to its other projects and its total income. Determination of the Corporation's income takes into account the overall requirements of the Corporation.

Mr. Janner: That does not answer the Question. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to provide the East Midlands —whether in Leicester or Nottingham— with a reasonable opportunity for a studio, which is essential in that district? Has not he received certain requests from Leicester—and possibly also from Nottingham—to that effect? What is he prepared to do to encourage the provision of this essential studio?

Mr. Bevins: With respect, I think the hon. Member is confusing the Postmaster-General with the British Broadcasting Corporation. I have discussed with the Corporation the probable cost of a studio of this kind. It is difficult for the B.B.C. to give a figure with any precision, but it would be at least £100,000, and might be as much as £300,000. Although the Government are responsible for ensuring that the B.B.C. has sufficient funds to enable it to discharge its duties, we are not responsible for telling it what specific projects it should undertake.

Mr. Janner: A shocking thing.

Western Isles

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Postmaster-General (1) the chief remaining technical difficulties on which he bases his refusal, to date, to authorise the British Broadcasting Corporation to spend the money necessary to provide television and very-high-frequency service in the Western Isles;
(2) when he intends to authorise the expenditure by the British Broadcasting Corporation of the money necessary to provide television service in the Western Isles, now that many of the technical and financial difficulties, impeding development in that area, have been overcome by the local radio dealer who is providing television service in Stornoway.

Mr. Bevins: The B.B.C. is pressing on with a very full programme for the provision of more satellite television and V.H.F. sound stations, including four stations for Scotland, although not for the Western Isles. The Corporation has not yet put before me the details of its later plans, but it tells me that it has the needs of the Western Isles very much in mind.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the problem has a peculiarly social and human significance in an area which is witnessing a serious drifting away of young people? It is a peculiarly important question in the area. Secondly, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it a little humiliating, both for the Post Office and the B.B.C., that the alleged technical and financial difficulties which have stood in the way over the years are being solved by the enterprise of a small local private firm? Is

it not time that we speeded up the satellite programme and brought that area into line with the rest of the North of Scotland?

Mr. Bevins: I agree with the point made by the hon. Member in the early part of his supplementary question, but the point he made in the latter part is rather a different one, in the sense that the radio dealer who is providing this television service in Stornoway is doing it on a relatively limited basis. The difficulty is largely a technical one, but I will undertake to convey the hon. Member's views to the authorities.

Broadcasting (Future)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Postmaster-General if he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the future of broadcasting in this country.

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Member's suggestion has been noted for consideration.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that a Royal Commission will need a good deal of time to cope with this complicated and controversial question, and that the broadcasting organisations, both B.B.C. and commercial television, will need a good deal of notice in respect of the changes that will be required of them?

Mr. Bevins: Yes. I am very conscious of the time factor in this matter. I can assure the hon. Member and the House that the right action, in the view of the Government, will be taken in good time in order to enable all aspects of this question to be very thoroughly examined.

Sir R. Grimston: Will my right hon. Friend also take into consideration the fact that there is a large body of opinion which considers that another Royal Commission on this subject is unnecessary?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, I am aware of that point of view.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Bentley Estate, Darlaston

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Postmaster-General what Post Office services he is arranging to provide for the Bentley Estate in the urban district of Darlaston.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): This estate has a sub-post office, four pillar boxes and three telephone kiosks. These facilities are comparable with those we provide in similar areas. I have not the provision of additional facilities in mind at present, but I shall watch the position as the estate grows.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that the Darlaston Urban District Council is very concerned that there are not proper Post Office facilities available in this important and large estate? Will she ask her right hon. Friend to co-operate with the council in the provision of the facilities which are required there?

Miss Pike: I should like to assure the hon. Member that we are doing what we can. The shop where the council would like the second office is only a very short distance from the Bentley office which we recently opened—only 625 yards. There may well be a case later for opening an office on the as yet undeveloped northern half of the estate, where some shops are to be built. We are watching that position very carefully.

Longbenton Estate, Newcastle

Mr. McKay: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the sub-post office recently started in No. 4 area of the Longbenton Estate, Newcastle, has improved the position there, but that it is no improvement for the aged pensioners in No. 3 area; and if he will have this matter investigated and consider having a post office in No. 3 area based on the grounds of population and not distance apart.

Miss Pike: The new office has improved the position for the Longbenton Estate generally. I am sorry that I am unable to justify a separate office in unit No. 3, since the three nearby offices are all reasonably accessible to this part of the estate and are, I believe, adequate for the people they serve.

Mr. McKay: Will the Minister reconsider the position and have another investigation? Will she confirm that there is strong feeling in the district about the need for another post office?

Miss Pike: The new office on the Longbenton Estate was opened only on 27th October, and I should like a little longer to consider the matter. The position will be kept under constant review.

Sub-Postmasters (Salaries)

Mr. McKay: asked the Postmaster-General the salary paid to sub-postmasters where other business is carried on within the premises and in the same room; and to what extent a commission, in addition to the salary, is payable on the amount of pensions, family allowances and so forth that are paid at the post office.

Miss Pike: The majority of sub-post offices are combined with other business. Subject to minimum payments, sub-postmasters are paid according to the amount of work done. The same basis is used whether the post office is run in conjunction with another business or not. There is no additional commission.

Bank Holiday Deliveries and Charges

Mr. McKay: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the complaints about the cancellation of Bank Holiday deliveries and the increased charges for all sorts of Post Office services; and if he will make efforts to improve this position.

Miss Pike: There have been few recent complaints about these changes. I will always do my best to improve matters, but I can hold out no hope of a general restoration of Bank Holiday deliveries or reduction in charges. It is more than two years since any Post Office charge was increased.

Mr. McKay: Does not the Minister consider that the Department ought to fall into line with the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is anxious to have prices reduced? Can she not make an example in the Post Office to show what can be done?

Miss Pike: We are doing everything we can to ensure that the Department is run on an economic and commercial basis.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the Minister aware that the largest profit ever made in the history of the Post Office was made last year? Is it not about time that the Post Office looked at these charges, particularly the telephone charges, which are far too high having regard to the profit made on the telephone service?

Miss Pike: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that everything is under examination.

Hill Top Estate, Edlington

Mr. Kelley: asked the Postmaster-General in view of the unsatisfactory postal services now provided for the residents of the Hill Top Estate, Edlington, near Doncaster, if he will take immediate steps to establish a sub-post office on this estate.

Miss Pike: I have reviewed the matter, but I am sorry that I should not be justified in opening an office on this estate.

Mr. Kelley: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware of the terrible nature of the route to this post office and that many old people are compelled to use a hand-rail to climb a very steep hill to reach it? Is she aware that there has been much complaint about the late delivery of mail in this area, because of the interference with the postman's ordinary duties through his having to sell stamps, postal orders and other things? Is there not some ground for reviewing the Department's policy on the subject of sub-post offices because of this situation?

Miss Pike: I know that the district is hilly and very difficult. Strictly speaking, the area would qualify as rural for postal deliveries, but it is very heavily built up and we have applied the more lavish urban scale to it. I know that the direct route to the post office is down a perilous hill, but there is an alternative route, 1,900 yards long, which is a flatter route, and there is a good bus service on it. I should like to keep the facility of the postman selling stamps and postal orders to the residents in that area. We shall keep the whole position under constant review, but I am afraid that at this point we are not justified in opening another office.

Charges

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Postmaster-General, having regard to the Government's reiterated appeals for lower prices, what contribution is to be expected from the General Post Office by reduction of their charges.

Mr. Bevins: The Post Office will continue to make every contribution it can

towards stability of prices. But I am not able to say when the position will be such as to enable me to adjust tariffs.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that his first responsibility as Postmaster-General is to provide a cheap and efficient postal service? As I am the Parliamentary successor in Kidderminster to Sir Rowland Hill, who inaugurated the Penny Post, would my right hon. Friend observe my special interest in the matter and make an early statement pointing to a reduction in postal charges and a resumption of at least a twopenny post for a letter?

Mr. Bevins: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House are conscious of my hon. Friend's historical and other associations with the General Post Office, but he ought to bear in mind that our surplus last year was just over £8 million on a turnover of rather more than £400 million, which is 2 per cent. If my hon. Friend can persuade manufacturers in Kidderminster who are working on such a narrow margin to bring down their prices, I shall be interested to know it.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend observe that manufacturers in Kidderminster enjoy no such monopoly as the Post Office enjoys for letters?

Mr. Bevins: It is because the Post Office is a monopoly that we are so conscious of the need to give the public an efficient and cheap service.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Postmaster-General on what date he increased letter-post rates from 2½d. to 3d., and remaining postal rates approximately commensurately; how much of last year's surplus of £8 million arose from these increases; and whether he will state his future policy in regard to postal and associated rates.

Miss Pike: The postal tariff changes to which my hon. Friend refers were made on 1st October, 1957. Last year's surplus on Postal Account was £3 million. I estimate that, but for the tariff changes mentioned in the Question, there would instead have been a deficit of about £20 million. My right hon. Friend has already indicated his general policy in the Answer to the previous Question.

Mr. Nabarro: That is no excuse for the Postmaster-General seeking to contract out of the Chancellor's policy of a general reduction in prices. Has he not observed that the first step of reducing letter postal charges would have an important bearing on the general level of prices, notably for business and commerce? Cannot he be a little more objective and forthcoming in that important regard?

Miss Pike: I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the hon. Lady aware that on the letter rate alone the profit last year was £13·5 million?

Mr. Nabarro: Was it?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the letter rate carrying far too much of the burden to make the postal charges viable?

Miss Pike: We have a general responsibility for all our postal undertakings. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that the letter post made the highest profit. On the other hand, we have to discharge our other responsibilities.

Letter Sorting and Date Stamping

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Postmaster General what percentage of letter sorting and date stamping is still carried out manually in General Post Office establishments; what mechanisation of these processes is taking place; to what extent mechanisation of sorting and date stamping would be hastened by standardisation of envelopes; what steps he is initiating in that regard; and, in view of the desirability of reducing postal charges, whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Bevins: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not mind if I reply to these Questions seriatim and succinctly.
One: about 99·5 per cent. Two: about 1 per cent. Three: a good start has been made with the mechanisation of sorting. Four: standardisation of envelopes would help to some extent. Five: under examination. Six: in good time.
I am circulating a more intelligible Answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Nabarro: I hope that you will not mind, Mr. Speaker, if I ask my supplementary question succinctly but not seriatim.

Mr. Chetwynd: Send the Minister a letter.

Mr. Nabarro: Most important of all, may I put it to my right hon. Friend that as 70 per cent. of the charges for dealing with letters are accounted for by labour, all these processes of mechanisation must lead to economies in cost? Should not those economies in costs be passed on to the harassed consumer and to the community as a whole, instead of being pocketed by the Treasury as additional taxation?

Mr. Bevins: I realise the importance of mechanisation in the Post Office as much as any hon. Member and I have not the slightest doubt that mechanisation is a good thing for many reasons, but I do not believe that mechanisation in itself will give the Post Office the necessary savings to enable us to reduce postal rates. I think there are other and more fruitful approaches.

Following is the information:
Some 99·5 per cent. of letter sorting and 1·2 per cent. of date stamping is carried out manually. Stamp cancelling machines are in use in all but the smallest offices. Seventeen letter-sorting machines of a type which has been developed only in the last few years are already in use in certain offices throughout the country. New techniques are being developed which may enable us to sort much more correspondence automatically. These developments could well be facilitated by some standardisation of envelope sizes and characteristics and the subject is currently being studied both in the British Post Office and by a committee of the Universal Postal Union on which we are represented. Commercial interests in this country are well aware of what is being done. Important though they are, it is unlikely that the savings arising from mechanisation of those parts of the postal service which lend themselves to the process will be such as to allow us to reduce postage rates.

Telephone Calls and Letters (Interception)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Postmaster-General how many warrants, signed by a Secretary of State and authorising interceptions of telephone calls and letters, he has received during 1957 and 1958.

Mr. Bevins: It is not the practice to disclose the number or the nature of warrants that have been received.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the number of interceptions authorised by the Secretary of State between 1937 and 1956 is clearly set out in the Report of the Birkett Committee? Will he say to what extent the public interest or national security would be imperilled if he gave the total number of warrants that have been issued? Has he been bulldozed by the Home Secretary into refusing this information because disclosure would be embarrassing to Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. Neither the Home Secretary nor any of my colleagues bulldoze me at all. The Birkett Committee, as the hon. Member well knows, gave the figures in the Appendix to its Report, to use its own words, "as an exceptional measure," and made it perfectly clear in paragraph 121 of the Report that it was
strongly of the opinion that it would be wrong for figures to be disclosed by the Secretary of State at regular or irregular intervals in the future.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Bevins: Hon. Members ask "Why?" The reason was given in the Report— that it would greatly aid the operation of agencies hostile to the State —this is not my opinion but that of the Birkett Committee—if they were able to estimate, even approximately, the extent of interception.

Offices, Aberdeen (Old-Age Pension Payments)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General the number and location of the offices where old-age pensions are payable in the Northfield, Mastrick, Cairncry and Woodside districts of Aberdeen; and what steps he is taking to increase the number and convenience of locale of these offices in those areas.

Miss Pike: A new sub-office to be opened early in January, in the North of the Summerhill area of Aberdeen, will also cater for the South-West part of Mastrick area. This will bring the number of sub-offices serving the districts the hon. and learned Member mentions to nine. I have gone into the matter very thoroughly and believe that these districts will now be adequately served.
As the information for which the hon. and learned Member has asked about the location of the sub-offices is rather detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that these districts are very hilly, widespread and thickly populated with old-age pensioners and others? Would not a solution of the difficulty be found if mobile offices were provided? Would the Minister look into that suggestion with a view to providing offices, particularly where there are old-age pensioners?

Miss Pike: I agree with the hon. and learned Member that the district is very hilly, but when the new office is opened the people in the Cairncry and Woodside wards will be within three-quarters of a mile—most of them less than half a mile —of a post office. There are good local transport facilities. I realise that old people have some difficulty in getting their pensions, but when the new office is open we shall keep the whole situation under review. We have not had mobile offices, but I shall bear in mind the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member.

Following is the information:
The Northfield, Mastrick, Cairncry and Woodside districts of Aberdeen are served by the following sub-post offices:
Northfield Sub-Office, 11, Lintmill Terrace.
Mastrick Sub-Office, 1, Clunie Place.
Cummings Park Sub-Office, Moir Green.
Middlefield Sub-Office, 815a, Great Northern Road.
Woodside Sub-Office, 408, Great Northern Road.
Hilton Sub-Office, 85, Hilton Road.
Rosehill Sub-Office, 4, Hilton Drive.
Kittybrewster Sub-Office, 55, Powis Terrace.
The Summerhill sub-post office, to be opened on 4th January, 1960, will be situated just south of the Lang Straught boundary of Mastrick.

Sub-Offices (Location)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Postmaster-General if he will review the conditions for establishing sub-post offices in order to ensure that arbitrary standards of population and distance do not frustrate the fulfilment of genuine community need.

Miss Pike: I can assure the hon. Member that we keep the conditions for establishing sub-post offices continually under review. But the amount of money we can spend on new post offices is not unlimited and has to be spread equitably over the country as a whole; for this reason, we have to have rough standards related to the position of existing post offices and to the number of people they serve, but we do look at each case on its merits and try to avoid being arbitrary.

Mr. Swingler: Will the hon. Lady consider that where a new housing estate has been established, with its own shopping centre and its own services in every other respect, the residents of such an estate have a right to a postal service of their own, even though there may be an existing post office just a fraction under a mile away?

Miss Pike: I can assure the hon. Member that we look at the position in new housing estates very closely, and we are very conscious of the need to put post offices in new shopping centres, which are the focal points of estates. We keep the position constantly under review. I can assure him that I shall do my best to see that we get as many sub-post offices as we can afford.

Mr. Popplewell: May I ask the hon. Lady not to be so rigid about the mile limit for these post offices? In these new estates there is a growing density of population and to stick so rigidly to the mile limit causes great hardship, particularly in my constituency.

Miss Pike: I can assure the hon. Member that by no means do we stick rigidly to a mile limit. It is a rough guide which we use in the initial stages when judging where to put post offices, but we are not at all rigid. We try to take every possible consideration into account, and it is only the very difficult cases which come before this House.

Mail Deliveries, Maidenhead

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that numerous complaints have recently been made regarding the late delivery of mail in the Maidenhead area; and what steps he is taking to ensure that no unnecessary delay occurs of such a nature as to cause inconvenience, either to commercial firms or to private residents.

Miss Pike: I have little evidence of any general dissatisfaction about the delivery of mail in the Maidenhead area. My hon. Friend has, however, brought to my notice several complaints from one firm in the area, and as a result action has already been taken to make sure that the first morning delivery should be made to it more regularly in future. I am also investigating the complaints of delay to individual letters for this firm; I am sorry about these and will be writing to my hon. Friend about them. I think I should add, however, that some of the complaints seem to stem from an imperfect understanding by the firm in question and others of the regulations governing the printed paper post.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Is my hon. Friend aware that these complaints are not confined to one firm nor to delivery of mail at the twopenny rate? Will she take steps to find why the machinery for sorting and delivery seems to have gone wrong in many cases recently?

Miss Pike: I shall take steps to make certain that this position is kept constantly under review and that we provide a satisfactory service for this area.

Craigton

Mr. Millan: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to establish a Crown post office in the Craigton Ward area of Glasgow.

Miss Pike: The Craigton Ward is well served by its seven sub-post offices and I should not be justified in providing a Crown post office there at present. I am writing to the hon. Member about our future plans.

Little London, Andover (Sub-Office)

Mr. Denzil Freeth: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will authorise the provision of a sub-post office at Little London, near Andover, Hampshire.

Miss Pike: I am sorry that I should not be justified in doing as my hon. Friend wishes.

Mr. Freeth: Is not my hon. Friend aware that in this hamlet there is a shopkeeper who is more than willing to act as an attendant at a sub-post office there,


and that the distance between this hamlet and the nearest post office is not one mile, but over 1¼ miles from the centre, and very much more from the outlying part of the hamlet? Furthermore, is she aware that the distance between Little London and Andover is much more than 1¼ miles, and that the bus service running between the two places is very unsatisfactory? Will not she allow a little of her charm to radiate into Little London at Christmas?

Miss Pike: I am looking at this matter very closely. Little London is a village with fifty-five houses, and it is only three miles from Andover. Mr. and Mrs. Green would like to open a sub-post office there. We had a post office there in 1945, but we have not found any reason for reopening it in present circumstances. I would point out to my hon. Friend that those of us who live in the country do not have such generous standards as those who live in urban areas, and that in rural districts we have to apply something like a two-mile rule rather than a one-mile rule.

Mr. Freeth: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment.

Corstorphine

Mr. Stodart: asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider establishing a Crown post office in the Corstorphine district of Edinburgh, if suitable premises can be found.

Miss Pike: Corstorphine is reasonably well served by two sub-post offices and should not be justified at present in replacing them by a Crown office.

Mr. Stodart: Is my hon. Friend aware that the population of this district has been growing considerably in the last few years, and that it is now almost equivalent to that of Portobello, which has a Crown post office?

Miss Pike: The St. Johns Road office was extended and improved in 1955, and a further extension will be possible if this proves necessary. We believe that the accommodation in the Corstorphine post office is satisfactory. There is the further point that it would be necessary to close both existing sub-post offices to

provide sufficient business for a Crown office, and it is not likely that the residents would consider this an improvement.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Isleworth

Mr. D. Smith: asked the Postmaster-General what steps are being taken to rectify the inaudibility of the new Isleworth telephone exchange; and if he will treat the matter as one of urgency, in view of the large number of industrial establishments affected in the Brentford area.

Mr. Bevins: I am sorry about this trouble. It does not arise in the new Isleworth exchange but is due to the fact that the network of cables in the area had to be extensively re-arranged when the Isleworth exchange was opened and that it has not yet been possible to bring the transmission over the cables up to normal standards. The cables are being reconditioned, but a great deal of highly technical work is involved. Although the matter is being treated as one of urgency, it may be some time before it can be completed.

Mr. Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that everything possible will be done in this matter as soon as possible after Christmas, in view of the extreme difficulties under which many business organisations in the district are suffering?

Mr. Bevins: Yes. As a short-term measure we hope to give the complaining firms the new type of telephone instrument as soon as possible. We are also reconditioning one of the main cables between Isleworth and Brentford.

Calls (Crossed Lines)

Mr. Tiley: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the increase in telephone calls which are heard by other subscribers due to defects causing lines to be accidentally crossed and linked; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this awkward and dangerous position.

Mr. Bevins: Although trouble of this kind is not widespread or frequent, I share my hon. Friend's concern about it. I have arranged for a special overhaul


of the equipment at the Manningham exchange, which my hon. Friend may have particularly in mind, and I hope that this will put things right.

Mr. Tiley: I am grateful for the help which my right hon. Friend is giving, but will he look at the evidence I shall send him next week, which shows that this problem is a good deal more widespread than in its local aspect? Is not it rather shocking that we should accept this position as inevitable in our telephone service? In view of the cleverness of technologists and Post Office engineers, is not it possible to introduce an automatic tapping device to the service when these lines get crossed, especially in view of the fact that so many party lines are now being used?

Mr. Bevins: The trouble at Manningham is probably due to the building work in progress. I am sorry my hon. Friend has had this unfortunate experience, but I have no doubt that his telephone conversations are just as interesting as his speeches in this House. I do not believe that this trouble is very widespread.

Subscribers, Fife (Directories)

Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the proposed changes in the telephone directory as it affects the County of Fife.

Mr. Bevins: Both the Edinburgh and Dundee directories have hitherto included separate sections for subscribers in Fife. In future, subscribers in the southern half of Fife will be shown in the Edinburgh directory and those in the northern half in the Dundee directory. In both directories all subscribers will be shown in a single alphabetical list.
Many authorities and organisations were approached and the changes were generally welcomed as making the directories more useful and convenient. Some criticisms, however, have been made, and I am now also arranging for the publication of a separate directory for subscribers in Fife and Kinross.

Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: I thank my right hon. Friend for the latter concession, concerning a separate telephone book for Fife and Kinross, but may I ask whether he is aware that his present

plan of having separate Dundee and Edinburgh books, thus dividing Fife into two, will be very unpopular? Will he reconsider the question when the new telephone books are printed?

Mr. Bevins: I agree with my hon. Friend that this change is unpopular in Fife, but of the twenty bodies which the Post Office consulted only two raised objections. The difficulty in which I find myself is that if we were to halt these new arrangements at this stage it would mean that Dundee and Edinburgh would have to work on the basis of the old directories for at least another six or eight months. I will certainly undertake to have regard to my hon. Friend's representations when this matter arises again, in the early part of 1962.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Married Quarters (Personal Case)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Air on what grounds Warrant Officer R. Davies was refused married quarters when he returned to this country from Singapore to conclude the last six months of his twenty-four years' service in the Royal Air Force.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. W. J. Taylor): Warrant Officer Davies could have been given a married quarter at the station to which he was posted only at the expense of someone else with a prior claim. He rejected accommodation elsewhere.

Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be disturbed that a man who has served twenty-four years and is brought back from overseas is not guaranteed any home for his family? Is he aware that his right hon. Friend has written to me saying that in cases of this kind, if men offer to remain overseas, they are entitled to a house and that Warrant Officer Davies made this offer? Is he also aware that the houses which he was offered were such a distance from where his children were at school and where he had the prospect of work that he could do no other than refuse them?

Mr. Taylor: In all three Services a Service man is not entitled to official married accommodation unless he is expected to spend at least six months at that station.

Mr. Brockway: After twenty-four years.

Mr. Taylor: I am advised that the Royal Air Force officers at Uxbridge had many interviews with Warrant Officer Davies in an effort to help him, and he was offered alternative accommodation.

Mr. Brockway: Twenty miles away.

Mr. Taylor: Warrant Officer Davies refused this accommodation, on the grounds that he wanted to be in the Slough area and did not want to disrupt his children's education by further moves. These grounds do not constitute a sufficiently strong compassionate case to justify waiving the rules and giving him a married quarter at Uxbridge over someone else's head.

Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. In view of the very unsatisfactory reply, I shall take an early opportunity to try to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Land, Gloucester

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Secretary of State for Air when he expects to announce his decision concerning the transfer of his Department's land at Gloucester to the British Transport Commission for the new marshalling yard.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: As my hon. Friend will now have heard, we are prepared to release this land if the Commission will pay for the reprovision elsewhere of certain essential facilities.

Mr. Kershaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that that Answer will give satisfaction to a large number of people in the Brookthorpe parish of my constituency, but will do nothing to lessen their amazement and dismay that the British Transport Commission still requires 125 acres of extremely good farming land to complete this marshalling yard?

Mr. Taylor: I am very glad to hear what my hon. Friend said in the first part of his supplementary question. The latter part of it is not a matter for me.

Senior Officers

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many officers of the rank of air vice marshal and above there were in the Royal Air Force to every 1,000 officers and men and women of other ranks on 1st September, 1959, 1949, and 1939, respectively.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: The figures are 0·574, 0·460 and 0·356. They take into account officers serving in other Government Departments and in international headquarters as well as those serving in purely R.A.F. posts.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Under-Secretary aware that, even if we recognise the need for senior officers at N.A.T.O. and other international and inter-Service posts, these figures seem very disquieting? Does not this continued inflation of the rank reflect on the Service itself?

Mr. Taylor: The number of air marshals naturally varies with the responsibilities as well as with the size of the Royal Air Force. For example, officers of air vice marshal rank and above are needed for posts outside the Royal Air Force itself, in N.A.T.O. and in Government Departments. There are ten officers filling such posts at the moment, compared with only two in 1949. The relative strength of officers of that rank to the strength of the Force is continually under observation.

Aden

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that a large number of airmen stationed at Aden, and their families, are living in conditions of squalor, and that in particular thirty-seven families are still living in a dirty and dank hotel that has been condemned as unsuitable by the housing and medical authorities, and whose proprietors are in some cases charging £22 10s. per week for one small room occupied by a corporal, his wife, and three children; and, in view of the detrimental effect on morale and on British prestige, if he will take immediate steps to provide suitable accommodation for these and other families.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he has now studied the report submitted by the team of officers sent out to inquire into conditions at Aden; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Monslow: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many complaints he has received about Royal Air Force conditions in Aden; and what is being done to expedite improvements.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): There have been some


thirty complaints this year about conditions in Aden. I am well aware that present conditions there leave a lot to be desired.
As the House knows, we are already going ahead with a very substantial programme of new building. We are doing all we can—including using prefabricated construction—to get this programme completed as quickly as possible; but it will inevitably take time.
Meanwhile, we are taking immediate steps to raise the minimum standard of approved family accommodation. If necessary, some men nearing the end of their tours will be posted home early to make room in acceptable accommodation for families now living below the new standard.
To reduce pressure on married accommodation until new quarters and hirings are available, we are considering urgently the possibility of offering more frequent air passages home to officers and airmen whose families remain in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Fletcher: Does the Minister realise that, according to the recent Parliamentary delegation to Aden and other visitors, a large number of R.A.F. families are living in conditions which are so sordid and degrading as to be a national scandal, and that some families are living cheek by jowl with Arabs on the lowest Arab standards? [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] I said "on the lowest Arab standards." Does the Minister realise that the steps which he has announced today should have been taken long ago and that the present situation is the result of complacency, delay and neglect on his part? Will he take every possible step to remedy these appalling conditions?

Mr. Ward: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the population of Aden has increased by four times in the last three years. We have done our best to keep pace with this increase, but it is absolutely physically impossible to keep pace with it. We have a very large building programme in hand and we shall do all we can to press on with it. Meanwhile, the scheme that I have announced today should. I think, help quite considerably.

Mr. John Hall: While paying tribute to the efforts of those on the spot and

of the authorities in Aden in trying to overcome the problem, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that he has not answered my Question? Do the steps that he has described arise out of the report of the officers he sent to visit Aden, or has he not yet had time to study their report? Further, is not it possible for the Government of Aden to take action against those in Aden who overcharge for accommodation and, indeed, perpetrate frauds on airmen and officers?

Mr. Ward: Of course I have seen and studied the report, and it was very helpful to me in considering what to do. On the second part of the supplementary question, I hope the scheme which I have outlined to raise the standard of approved accommodation will very largely solve the other problem.

Mr. Monslow: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the possibility, until the improvements which he suggests are effected, of reducing the period of service of R.A.F. personnel in Aden?

Mr. Ward: I have already said that, where necessary, I would bring home early Service men nearing the end of their tour so that when they come home there will be more room for everyone else.

Mr. Mason: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he has now given consideration to the possibility of arranging that a posting to Aden should be a oneyear unaccompanied tour for Royal Air Force personnel, with a view to solving more quickly some of the difficulties prevailing there.

Mr. Ward: A one-year tour in Aden would mean a considerable loss of productive service. Men would be continually in the process of getting used to the climate; and twice as much time would be lost in embarkation and disembarkation leave and in transit. In addition there would be a large increase in "turbulence" not only among those directly involved in Aden, but also elsewhere. I consider, therefore, that these disadvantages outweigh the merits of the proposal.

Mr. Mason: While recognising that it might interfere with the operational efficiency of the station, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would


agree that it is a fact that, as well as the families of airmen living in deplorable conditions, the airmen themselves are living in shocking conditions; and therefore, if we are to think of the morale of the forces there, and of their state of health, would not a twelve-month unaccompanied tour be better than two years in these hot, humid and deplorable conditions?

Mr. Ward: I have already said that I realise that the conditions in Aden at present leave much to be desired, but I do not accept that on the whole morale is bad. I have no reason to believe that a one-year tour would produce so spectacular an improvement in morale as to offset the very solid disadvantages which I have enumerated.

Mr. Strachey: If the Secretary of State proposes to continue with the longer tour, which involves families going out to Aden, will he restrain his officer who is reported as having said that he could not care less about what were the conditions of the families out there, which was a most unfortunate thing to say?

Mr. Ward: I have, of course, asked for a report from Aden on the facts. The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment until I have received that report. But I can say that no one has worked harder or more wholeheartedly to improve the conditions for Service men and their families than this particular officer.

Dame Irene Ward: As to all intents and appearances it seems as though the Air Ministry is being extremely slow in this matter, would not my right hon. Friend think it a good idea to send out to Aden a woman who does know something about it?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Dame Irene Ward: May I please have an answer to my question?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Minister desire to answer the supplementary question put by the hon. Lady?

Mr. Ward: We shall always be delighted to see my hon. Friend if she likes to come to Aden.

Mr. de Freitas: If it is not possible for the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-

mouth (Dame Irene Ward) to go—there may be certain points about which I do not know—will the Secretary of State consider sending the Under-Secretary of State to Aden, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot go himself, because for over a year now most serious allegations have been made and there is evidence of quite unnecessary suffering?

Mr. Ward: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is going to Aden during the Christmas recess, and so is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Air why certain hotels and restaurants in Aden, formerly available to officers and other ranks, have recently been placed out of bounds to other ranks.

Mr. Ward: The proprietors of two restaurants asked us to do this since there had been misbehaviour on their premises. We shall review the position in a few months' time.

Mr. Lipton: Is not this a very unsatisfactory state of affairs? Why does the Air Ministry add insult to injury by putting out of bounds two restaurants formerly available to other ranks, while allowing officers to visit them? Is it not highly undesirable that local restaurant proprietors should be able to operate this kind of class distinction involving the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Ward: The proprietors asked us to put the restaurants out of bounds temporarily. I am afraid that this sort of situation is inevitable if a minority let down the Service and their colleagues by unruly conduct, but we shall keep the matter under review.

Satellites

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air his plans for launching satellites carrying scientific instruments when suitable rockets are fired during training.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: I have no plans to announce at present.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Under-Secretary aware that, after all that research in finding the Answer among his papers,


we had hoped for a little more information? Is he also aware of the full implication of paragraph 14 of the Report on Scientific Policy? Is the Royal Air Force really doing all it can to help our scientists to get satellites into space in the course of ordinary R.A.F. training at no extra cost to the taxpayer?

Mr. Taylor: I am aware of the importance of this matter, but there are other Government Departments involved in research and so on. The Government are anxious to press on and I shall certainly draw to the attention of my noble Friend the Minister for Science, and other Ministers concerned, what has been said by the hon. Gentleman.

Cornwall (Rocket Bases)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air what proposals he has for setting up rocket bases in the County of Cornwall.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: None, Sir.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the Minister aware that quite recently at a civil defence lecture it was stated that the reason for the increase in civil defence in Cornwall was because there were to be rocket sites in Cornwall? Will he ensure that there is close liaison with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary regarding this matter which has caused a great deal of disquiet?

Mr. Taylor: I am aware of the statement to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I am looking into it.

St. Eval

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is yet in a position to make a statement over the disposal of the remaining land owned by his Department at St. Eval.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: Ninety-five acres outside the airfield boundary will be sold shortly, but there is at present no intention of disposing of the airfield.

New School, Aden

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Air when the new Service school for the children of Royal Air Force parents at Khormaksar and Steamer Point, Aden, will be completed;

and what is his estimate of the total sum in fees which will have been paid to other schools by his Department up to that time, on account of the failure to provide sufficient places in Service schools.

Mr. Ward: Nine classrooms should be ready for use by about May, 1960, and I expect the school to be finished by early 1961. I cannot give a close estimate of the total cost of reimbursing fees at private schools, but if expenditure continued at about the present rate the total from July, 1958, to the end of 1960 would be of the order of £12,000

Mr. Swingler: Is not this a shameful story of the sins of the Department being visited on the children? Is not it a fact that this school ought to have been started and completed two years ago and that no explanation why the school was not started in 1957 has been forthcoming from the Ministry? What is the reason why it has taken so long to construct these extra classrooms?

Mr. Ward: I thought I had already told the hon. Gentleman that we have twice had to restart our plans to incorporate the necessary improvements and to cater for a larger number of children than were originally planned for.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES AIRCRAFT, UNITED KINGDOM BASES

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether he will inform President Eisenhower, in virtue of the agreement conferring joint control by the heads of the two Governments over the use of United States nuclear weapons in this country, that he will withhold consent to United States nuclear bombers being kept on patrol over British territory, as recently decided by the Strategic Air Command.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
We have received no proposals for any change in the long-standing arrangements regarding flights by United States aircraft based in this country. The question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Strategic Aircraft Command is preparing to make a request


of this sort? Will he give a categorical assurance that under no circumstances will the Government authorise United States nuclear bombers to patrol over this country?

Mr. Butler: I am unwilling to give any such assurance, because I have not the information which is in the possession of the hon. Gentleman, and I think it would be wrong to make any statement before we receive a request.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister why he failed to insist on agreement with the German Chancellor about foreign policy before approving a contract to provide Germany with more arms.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
It is not clear what contract the hon. Member has in mind. A number of contracts already exist for the supply of arms from this country, mainly by private firms, to the Federal German Government. For none of these contracts was the specific approval of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister required.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that £9 million worth of contracts, including, among other things, missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, have recently been approved and authorised for Western Germany? Will not the right hon. Gentleman take steps to dispel the impression that the Government, while stepping up and hair-triggering war preparations, are doing less than nothing to get on with the Summit Conference and negotiations for peace?

Mr. Butler: I cannot accept that aspect of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. Regarding the situation about contracts from this country, the Answer I have given is correct. Regarding N.A.T.O., the answer is that the N.A.T.O. policy and the policy generally about nuclear warheads and so forth was set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on 2nd December, 1958, in answer to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan).

Oral Answers to Questions — REPUBLIC OF IRELAND

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister to what extent the statement of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in Northern Ireland about the possibility of a policy of sanctions against the Irish Republic represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
I was answering hypothetical questions and made no statement of policy.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the very grave situation which arises when he raises hypothetical questions in places like Ireland? Is he aware that this remark will weaken the hands of those who are opposed to violence in Southern Ireland? Is he also aware that economic sanctions may add to the difficulties of dealing with unemployment in Northern Ireland and also make difficulties regarding unemployment on the West Coast of Scotland from which exports go to Ireland?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I do not accept that. It was not I who put the hypothetical questions. It was the members of the Press who put certain hypothetical questions to me. I made no statement of policy. I said that if there were ever to be sanctions they would have to be effective, but I did not give any indication of policy whatsoever. In conclusion, should like to say that I do not accept that the results will be as indicated by the hon. Member.

Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, in the last three years, 4 British policemen have been killed and 24 British policemen wounded and nearly £¾ million worth of damage done, all of which is chargeable to the British taxpayer, added to which there have been 318 incidents, which is an average of nearly three a week?

Mr. Butler: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for bringing to the notice of the House the gravity of the situation as it is seen in Northern Ireland. I think it is most important that the Government and the people of Northern Ireland should feel that behind them they have Her Majesty's Government and the people of this country.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that, however grave the situation and the feeling in Northern Ireland, his remarks on this occasion were extremely maladroit and have caused a great deal of trouble? Does he not frankly wish that he had not given that answer?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I stand absolutely by what I said. I was accompanied at the Press conference by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland who saw nothing objectionable or difficult in anything that I said. The matter was perfectly correctly reported by the Belfast Telegraph and other newspapers, and it has been perfectly correctly reported also by The Times on Tuesday, 15th December. I see nothing wrong in what I said. I only hope that it will have done good in the situation.

Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern which is felt in Northern Ireland over the persistence of these raids at midnight across the Ulster border from the Republic of Ireland? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the need to do everything possible to stop these murderous attacks, often on individual local policemen going their lawful rounds, by young armed hooligans who lie in ambusn in ditches at the side of lonely country roads at night?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the situation and I have been twice to see it for myself. I also said, in the course of answering questions put by the Press, that I was aware that the head of the Government in Eire, that is, Southern Ireland, was aware of the position and I think regrets it. I think the most and the best we can hope for is that the Government of Eire will exercise the utmost restraint and control of this situation in the light of what they believe.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all of us deplore these outbreaks of violence on the border? The question, however, is whether the imposition of economic sanctions against Ireland is the right way of dealing with them. Would it not have been better if the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has just given had been given at the Press conference?

Mr. Butler: The strange part is that the answer I have just given is one of

the answers I did give at the Press conference. It did not receive the same publicity as the rest. I personally feel that the Press have a difficult task and we should always support what they do. I did myself answer in that sense.

Mr. Gaitskell: In order to assist the Press in their difficult task, would it not be a good idea if the right hon. Gentleman would now quite formally disavow the idea of sanctions against Ireland?

Mr. Butler: I have nothing to add to or substract from what I said.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. BENCE: To ask the Minister of Transport what progress has been made by the committee under the chairmanship of Lord Chandos, in its consideration of plans to replace the R.M.S. "Queen Elizabeth" and R.M.S. "Queen Mary" by Messrs. John Brown, Clydebank, Limited, for the Cunard Company; and when it is proposed to lay the keel of the first of the vessels.

Mr. Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask your Ruling on whether or not it is incumbent upon an hon. Member to verify his facts in a Question before he puts it on the Order Paper. May I call your attention to Question No. 55 and ask whether or not it is a fact that the Chandos Committee is considering the replacement of the "Queens" and not the replacement by Messrs. John Brown? I ask this question because the answer is of great interest to the people whom I represent. We have 10·4 per cent. unemployment in shipbuilding and we certainly expect one of the Cunarders to be built on Tyneside.

Mr. Speaker: Whether or no a statement of fact in a Question is correct is not for the Chair. The position is that an hon. Member, when he puts on the Paper a Question containing an assertion of fact, himself bears responsibility for its accuracy.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: If it is possible for my hon. Friend to ask what is virtually a supplementary question to an original Question which has not been


asked, would you, Mr. Speaker, allow the opportunity for the Question itself to be asked.

Mr. Speaker: I find Question Time quite difficult enough from the Chair's point of view without embroidery. With the aid of, I think, three hon. Members not being here to ask their Questions and with the utmost brusqueness on the part of the Chair in declining to see those rising to ask supplementary questions, we were today only able to get to Question No. 47.

Later—

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. RIDSDALE: To ask the Minister of Transport what further progress has now been made in the British Transport Commission's reconsideration of its pension supplement scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ridsdale: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Question No. 97 on railway pensions has been on the Order Paper for the last four weeks, may I ask the Minister of Transport to make a statement, especially as the Minister of Power made a statement on pensions in the gas and electricity industries on 23rd November?

Mr. Speaker: I can only answer that question in the negative. I have no other power.

HON. MEMBER FOR WALTHAMSTOW, EAST

Mr. J. Harvey: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the position in which a Member of this House finds himself if, through accepting an official invitation to a dinner in his constituency, he becomes the subject of certain insinuations reported in the Press and arising out of legal proceedings which he wishes most emphatically and urgently to deny?

Mr. Speaker: While saying nothing as to sympathy with an hon. Member so placed, unless the matter raises some point of order or a breach of Privilege,

it would not be right to allow the House to be used as a place in which to produce a public statement in denial.

Mr. C. Pannell: Further to that point of order. While no one would wish that any hon. Member here should be able to abuse the privilege of the House, will you bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members of this House are in a public position and that, consequently, in the sort of position in which the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) finds himself it is shocking that he should be subject to all this publicity and not be allowed in any way to make a public statement here to defend himself or to indicate that he is willing and ready to answer any charges and rebut them?

Mr. Speaker: The difficulty is that it not even suggested that this gives rise to a breach of Privilege. In those circumstances, I could not find a way of making any opportunity, within the rules of the House, for allowing the kind of statement that the hon. Member would desire to make. That is the difficulty. I am far from feeling no sympathy. I say nothing about that.

Mr. Gaitskell: Further to that point of order. Would it not be possible for the hon. Gentleman, for whom we all have much sympathy, to make a personal statement in the House, Mr. Speaker? That is frequently done. It would clear up the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the difficulty about that is that there must be something to do with some matter arising from or connected with the House in a personal statement. The difficulty about this matter, so far as I know, is that that could not be said with regard to it. I only hope that what has been said here today may indirectly have been of assistance.

Mr. J. Harvey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I have no wish to labour the point this afternoon in view of what you have said, I should like to make it clear that I was at this dinner in my capacity as a Member of Parliament and was invited to it in that capacity.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business for the first week after the Christmas Recess?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Christmas Recess will be as follows:

TUESDAY, 26TH JANUARY—Report and Third Reading of the Foreign Service Bill, and of the Cinematograph Films Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 27TH JANUARY—Committee and remaining stages of the Coal Industry Bill, and of the Air Corporations Bill.

THURSDAY, 28TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Payment of Wages Bill.

FRIDAY, 29TH JANUARY—Consideration of private Members' Motions.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Leader of the House assure us that in no circumstances will he wander into the bogs of Ireland during the Recess?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Mellish: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been called to the fact that the last time the Minister of Transport answered Questions in the House was on 6th November? Is he aware that today there are over 50 Questions to the right hon. Gentleman, starting at Question No. 51? Bearing in mind the importance of these transport questions, will the Leader of the House take into account the need for an alteration in Questions generally to allow certain Ministers, like the Minister of Transport, to answer orally more frequently?
Further, can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the position on talks about public accountability? Are we getting on with them still?

Mr. Butler: I will look into what the hon. Member has said. I understand that Questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport have recently been reached at Question Time, but there was only one Question on the Order Paper. It is always worth looking at

this point, but I cannot say more at present.
I cannot say more about accountability at this stage.

Mr. H. Hynd: Can the Leader of the House say anything about the public accountability of those who speak in our name at international organisations like the Council of Europe? I should like to have a debate in the House about what happens at the Council of Europe and Western European Union.

Mr. Butler: I will make a note of what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Popplewell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has taken notice of the Motion, signed by hon. Members on this side of the House, representing constituencies in the North-East, and drawing attention to the serious situation that has developed in the shipbuilding industry on the Tyne, where there is 10·4 per cent. unemployment? Will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements at an early date in the new Session to debate this urgent problem in the North-East?

[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to use every incentive to encourage a major industry such as the motor industry, to site its expansion in the north-east, in view of the rapidly increasing unemployment in the engineering and shipbuilding industries there.]

Mr. Butler: I have noticed the Motion and I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend who is principally concerned.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will there be a debate on procedure at an early date after the Recess? Are the Government prepared to make a statement on the restoration of private Members' time and other consequential arrangements arising out of procedure?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I hope to make a statement in a few minutes indicating lines on procedure and indicating a debate shortly after we return following the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Lipton: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has noted the Motion standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends calling for the removal of the Chairman


of the Wokingham bench of magistrates? Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that on 3rd December he said:
… I should like to examine this Motion."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 1394.]
Can he say whether he has examined it and, if so, what he will do about it?

[That this House takes note that, on 19th October last at Wokingham Juvenile Court, Mr. Leonard Hackett, J.P., addressed an accused person in the following terms: "What you richly deserve is such a thorough thrashing that you would be senseless for about forty-eight hours. Very unfortunately this court has no power, and no other court has any power, to order you to be so punished. However, I have no doubt that if you continue in your present way of life this punishment you will receive, and it will not be ordered by a court of law but by other men in whose society you will find yourself"; and this House is therefore of the opinion that Mr. Hackett should he removed from the list of magistrates.]

Mr. Butler: I have nothing further to add on that subject.

Mr. Lipton: But has the right hon. Gentleman examined it?

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether, in his reference to discussing unemployment in shipbuilding on the Tyne, he means, quite genuinely, that he will initiate or allow the House to have a debate on this subject, which is of vast importance to all of us?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of my hon. Friend's anxiety, which is shared by other hon. Members who represent that area. I must be permitted, on business questions, to say that I will discuss it with my right hon. Friend who is principally concerned.

POLICE (ROYAL COMMISSION)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I will, with permission, make a statement about an inquiry into police matters.
The Queen has been pleased to approve the setting up of a Royal Commission on Police with the following terms of reference:
To review the constitutional position of the police throughout Great Britain, the arrangements for their control and administration and, in particular, to consider:

(1) the constitution and functions of local police authorities;
(2) the status and accountability of members of police forces, including chief officers of police;
(3) the relationship of the police with the public and the means of ensuring that complaints by the public against the police are effectively dealt with; and
(4) the broad principles which should govern the remuneration of the constable, having regard to the nature and extent of police duties and responsibilities and the need to attract and retain an adequate number of recruits with the proper qualifications.

I am glad to be able to announce that Her Majesty has also approved the appointment of the Right Hon. Sir Henry Willink, to act as chairman of the Royal Commission. I hope shortly to be able to announce the names of the members of the Commission.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the Prime Minister aware that we on this side of the House welcome the setting up of this Royal Commission and that we are very glad that Sir Henry Willink has been able to accept the chairmanship of the Commission? We hope that its work will lead to consolidation of good relations between the public and the police.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions about the scope of the terms of reference? First, do the terms of reference cover specifically the question of the right of Parliament to raise matters concerning provincial police forces? Secondly, would they cover consideration of the taking of statements by the police from people who are detained but not charged? Finally, would the Royal Commission be able to make an interim report on the question of the broad principles of the pay of the police, so that the Commission


should not be held up while it is considering all the other great matters which it has to consider?

The Prime Minister: On the first question, I think that the phrase,
the status and accountability,
covers what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
As to the second, I do not think that the terms of reference, although they are wide, actually cover what one might call police powers and procedure. These, of course, were the subject of the Royal Commission on Police Powers and Procedure, which reported in 1929. They are rather specialised subjects which I think these terms of reference, broad as they are, could hardly be expected to cover.
On the third question, I will certainly take note of the right hon. Gentleman's point. It will rest, perhaps, with the chairman of the Commission, but I think that it is a valuable suggestion and it may well be that the Commission would think it possible to divide its work in that way.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Since a good deal of the not so good relations between the police and the public is concerned with the charges made from time to time about the taking of statements, if the Royal Commission is to look into the relationship of the police and the public, should the right hon. Gentleman not look at this matter again? The Commission really would not be able to deal with one of the most important elements in this extremely difficult problem.

The Prime Minister: I think that what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind in the broad sense could be brought in under the relationship with the public, or public disquiet, but what I think, perhaps wrongly, that the right hon. Gentleman had in mind was the whole matter of the principles of evidence and all those rather technical matters which are more specialised. Where it affects what one might call the broad confidence of the public in the police, what the right hen. Gentleman has in mind will come within the scope of the Commission.

Mr. Royle: On the terms of reference, would the Prime Minister say something on two quite different points? Will the terms of reference cover, in particular,

the relationship between the police and coloured immigrants? I am thinking, obviously, of Notting Hill. Secondly, will the terms of reference cover the question of the part which the police play in the conduct of magistrates' courts?

The Prime Minister: I think that in general terms, certainly the first would be covered, because coloured immigrants from our Commonwealth are, of course, members of the public when they are here and in that sense seem to me to be covered by the terms of reference. The other question is a little more specialised and I should not like to pronounce upon it at the moment; but the hon. Member will see that the terms of reference are very wide and I would hope that everything he would wish could be dealt with by the Commission.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister say whether the Commission will be entitled to examine the general scope of police duties and, in particular, if the proposals for traffic wardens are brought into being, how this will affect the police and how far they can be relieved of their burden on traffic matters?

The Prime Minister: I think that the words "the functions" of the police cover what the hon. Member has in mind, unless the matter has already been tackled.

Mr. J. Hynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the reference to the remuneration of the police force in the terms of reference will enable the Commission to examine and to make recommendations in regard to suitable and adequate statutory provisions for police officers who may be injured, maimed, or worse in the course of their duties and their dependants?

The Prime Minister: Again, I would have thought that the phrase" the broad principles which should govern the remuneration … having regard to the nature and extent of police duties and responsibilities" was about as broad a phrase as we could find. I have no doubt that all these matters will be considered by the Commission.

Mr. Popplewell: Is the Prime Minister aware that representations have been made to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the scope of this inquiry


should extend to police activities in Northern Ireland? If this is not possible, will be explain why not, because there is considerable feeling in Northern Ireland that the inquiry should extend to that part of the United Kingdom, too?

The Prime Minister: I said specifically that it will cover Great Britain. The position of the police in Northern Ireland is rather separate, under a separate system, and I think that it would complicate the already very heavy work of the Commission if it were to involve itself in that matter, as well as other reasons why this may not be suitable to be dealt with in the same way.

Mr. Lagden: Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that no hon. Member will be debarred from giving evidence before this inquiry?

The Prime Minister: I think that it is a matter for the Commission to seek what evidence it wishes. I have no doubt that, if it felt that valuable evidence could be given by Members of the House of Commons, the Commission would be very ready and anxious to hear it.

Mr. Spriggs: May I ask the Prime Minister how long he expects the Commission to take to produce its report and whether the House will be given an opportunity to debate the report?

The Prime Minister: I cannot tell exactly how long it will take. We are very indebted to Sir Henry Willink for undertaking this task, which is not easy. The inquiry will, of course, require some time. Knowing Sir Henry and his methods, I do not think that he will take an undue time over it, but when the Commission's report is published I have no doubt that the House will wish to debate it. That can be arranged in the ordinary way.

PROCEDURE (PRIVATE MEMBERS' TIME AND SELECT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I will, with permission, Sir, make a statement on private Members' time and on the Recommendations of the Procedure Committee of 1959.
I am obliged for the views which I have received from right hon. and hon. Members, all of which I have carefully considered. The views expressed to me as to the best arrangements for the consideration of private Members' Motions vary considerably—some favour Mondays, some favour Wednesdays, in whole or in part, very many favour making no change in the present arrangements which confine private Members' time to Fridays.
I find no unanimity and have, therefore, decided to propose an experiment. The 20 Fridays already allotted for private Members' business will remain undisturbed. The Government programme for this Session was planned upon this basis, and, that being so, the House will, I trust, realise that there must be a limit to the extra time which can be given to private Members' Motions.
We are, however, prepared to give four opportunities for the consideration of Private Members' Motions on two Mondays and on two Wednesdays, in addition to the Fridays which they at present enjoy. A Monday up to 7 o'clock will be set apart towards the end of February, and another towards the end of May; and there will be a Wednesday from 7 o'clock until 10 o'clock in March and again towards the end of June.
I will inform the House of the precise dates when we resume, as they must, of course, depend upon the Government's general programme of business. Government business will be taken during the other half of these days. When title first half of the day is given, private Members are safeguarded against any inroad into the time by opposed Private Business which is set down for consideration at seven o'clock. I hope that this experiment will lead us to arrive at the best arrangement for next Session.
The Ballots to determine the precedence of Motions will be held in the


House after Questions. The necessary Motion to carry out the proposal is being prepared.
I now come to the Recommendations made by the Select Committee on Procedure. The Government are indebted to the Committee for its Report, which has been considered, as well as the views expressed during and since the debate in July. The Committee made some useful proposals for the more efficient dispatch of business, particularly in relation to Standing Committees, and I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a summary of those Recommendations which the Government propose to invite the House to accept. I have had the opportunity of discussing certain of the Recommendations which intimately concern the Chair with Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means. We have been guided by their advice, as will be indicated in the statement to be circulated.
There is, however, one Recommendation to which I wish to refer, namely, that the House should support Mr. Speaker in checking the number and length of supplementary questions. I feel that it is the wish of hon. Members in all parts of the House that more Questions should be answered orally and that this Recommendation will receive our general support. I detect a slight advance and venture to hope that in the New Year we shall resolve to support you, Mr. Speaker, in your endeavours.
We shall have the expert assistance of the Clerk of the House in drafting the Amendments to Standing Orders and Motions which will be required to carry the various proposals into effect, and these will be tabled immediately on our resumption after the Recess.
My statement today and the more detailed information to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, which, I must tell hon. Members, is of considerable length because we are accepting a considerable number of the Recommendations, will, I am sure, be studied by hon. Members. After our return I shall arrange for a debate to take place, not only upon the particular proposals, but generally, if that proves to be the wish of the House.

Mr. Gaitskell: I should like to express the appreciation of this side of the House for the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Although it is perhaps im-

possible to secure unanimity, it was certainly my impression that the general sense of the House during the debate on private Members' time was that we should have Private Members' Motions on Wednesdays instead of Fridays. The right hon. Gentleman has given us part of that, not the whole of it, and, although I would have liked more, I think that in the circumstances we should accept the experiment which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed.
With regard to the alterations in procedure, we shall, of course, study what is proposed, but there is one matter which has been brought up several times lately at the end of Questions, and that relates to the Prime Minister's Questions. May I ask the Leader of the House whether that point will be dealt with in the proposals of the Government after the Recess?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. If hon. Members will study the very considerable papers which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT, which run into four pages of foolscap, they will see a reference to the suggestion that we should have two Questions per Member, not three. That matter has been discussed with you, Mr. Speaker. I think that, in the circumstances, the Government, and I, as Leader of the House, would prefer that we should not finally come to a decision upon a final time for the Prime Minister's Questions, as was recommended by the Select Committee, until we try this experiment.

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not quite see why the limit of two instead of three Questions should affect the time at which the Prime Minister's Questions are reached. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to at least keep an open mind on this matter, so that we may consider it again in the debate which he has promised after the Recess. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would be prepared to allow the debate to take in not only the particular proposals, but the whole question of procedure and the whole Report, so that we can discuss what the proposals do not contain as well as what they do contain?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. That brings me to what I said at the end of my statement, namely, that, if it is desired, we shall certainly make the debate general so that hon. Members can put forward


other ideas which they may prefer. There is no absolute tie-up between the matter of two Questions instead of three, and the exact time for the Prime Minister's Questions, but I think that the combination of fewer supplementaries and a greater speed-up of Questions might well mean that the Prime Minister's Questions will come on at a reasonable hour. That is the sort of thing that we can discuss.

Mr. Driberg: Do the recommendations of the right hon. Gentleman include the modest proposal which I made to him, which would ensure at least that several more Questions were reached orally each day—that is to say, the proposal that Question Time should last for one hour from the moment at which Question No. 1 is called?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. Although the hon. Member wrote to me, and I am aware of his view, that proposal is not included in the circulated document. It is, however, one which the hon. Member can raise in the debate.

Mr. Shinwell: Do we understand that the right hon. Gentleman has made up his mind about these matters, or is he prepared to collect the voices and then come to a conclusion afterwards? Will he take great care in this matter of the number of Questions? Is he aware—no doubt he is—that Question Time is the most important time in this House, that it affords an opportunity for interrogating the Executive and that there are, no doubt, Ministers who would welcome a curtailment of Questions for obvious reasons? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the lengthy Answers furnished by Ministers? The fact that sometimes they are not very satisfactory is beside the point, but will the right hon. Gentleman do something to curtail the length of those Answers?

Mr. Butler: The Government and I, as Leader of the House, have based our proposals upon a Select Committee of the House, so that we have based them on something of which the House has cognisance. If hon. Members want to add or subtract, they will be able to do so. I was warning the House before the Recess that the general line of drafting which we shall now undertake is on the lines of the document I am circulating; so that hon. Members will have plenty

of time to consider it during the Recess. As regards the length of Questions or Answers, I would not restrict a stricture on that matter to one section of the House. It should apply to all hon. and right hon. Members, whether on the Front Benches or elsewhere.

Mr. C. Pannell: Will the Prime Minister look again at this matter of the Prime Minister's Questions? It was a unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure that the House should know a definite time at which the Prime Minister should answer. I think that all hon. Members are agreed upon that. It is not affected by the other matters that the right hon. Gentleman has put forward. It seems to us that the Prime Minister is simply being asked on two days of the week to be present at a certain time, and to some of us it seems a considerable disrespect to the Prime Minister that he is sometimes debarred from answering Questions by the loquacity of an Under-Secretary.

Mr. Butler: As I said in my opening statement, this is a matter for the House and for hon. Members ultimately to decide. I am interested to note the point made by the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend in this respect. It is not in the circulated document, but it has come up at Question Time and it must be a matter for future consideration.

Mr. Blackburn: Will the Leader of the House explain a little more clearly what he means by saying that it will be possible to add to or subtract from the recommendations of the Government? Will it be possible for amendments to be moved concerning items which have not been included in the Government's recommendations; and when it comes to the House accepting the recommendations, shall we be able to accept them all separately, or shall we have to accept them in bulk?

Mr. Butler: They will be in the form of Orders or Motions. The question of private Members' time will be dealt with in a Sessional Order. It will not be an amendment to the Standing Orders and as such it will be debatable. The other matters will be dealt with in either Orders or Motions, which would be susceptible of discussion and debate. Therefore, there will be ample opportunity to go into them. In addition, we


shall do our best to lay them immediately we return, to give time for hon. Members to study them.

Mr. Tiley: Will we be allowed to discuss accommodation as well as procedure? When the Select Committee sat last year, we were a little hampered in our deliberations by the terms of reference and it is difficult to discuss just the one subject.

Mr. Butler: We had better discuss accommodation on a separate occasion. We were ready to offer half a day even before the Recess, but the Opposition preferred to have a full day and the matter has, therefore, been postponed until after we return.

Mr. Marsh: Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to consider the possibility of giving drafting assistance to private Members? Does he not agree that the encouragement of amateur drafting is not in the best interests of the House?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member had better study our recommendations. This is a matter which I have discussed through the usual channels and with several hon. Members. If we might consider it later, I shall be obliged to the hon. Member.

Mr. Osborne: Are the right hon. Gentleman's recommendations fixed and firm? Can they be altered at all? If so, can we write to my right hon. Friend during the Recess—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall never get to an end of this unless we can hear it.

Mr. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend consider that in addition to reducing the number of Questions by each hon. Member from three to two, he should also, as a trial, see that no hon. Member puts more than one Question to one Minister, so that Ministers answer in rotation more often?

Mr. Butler: It is not part of the object this operation in any way to restrict Question Time or the liberty of asking Questions. The object is to get as many hon. Members into Question Time as possible. In the circumstances, it would be better not to restrict it further.

Mr. Warbey: With regard to private Members' time, can the right hon. Gentleman say how long is it intended

that the present Session will be? The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the amount of time which it is planned to take up for Government business, but as he is engaged in the process of lengthening Recesses and cutting down the length of the Session, would it not be better to reverse the process and give more total time to Parliamentary business so that we can have more private Members' time?

Mr. Butler: It will be found, in general, that we shall not sit very much less than any other Session of Parliament. It certainly is not our wish unduly to cut down Parliamentary debate. It is well known that I undertook to make this offer and I have now made it as against a Government programme already outlined. It is about as much as I can manage.

Mr. Peyton: Has my right hon. Friend been able to think of any method which might discourage those who habitually make very long speeches?

Mr. Butler: That lies more in your discretion, Mr. Speaker, than in mine.

Mr. Lipton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that when these proposals relating to procedure come before the House there will be a free vote on them?

Mr. Butler: We had better wait and discuss that.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House has a great deal of business to do. Ballot for Notices of Motions for Friday, 29th January.

Following is the detailed information:

REPORT FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE, 1959

[H.C. 92 of 1959; references to Summary of Recommendations, pages xxviii-xxix]

Recommendations which the Government propose to accept:

(ii) Alterations in the composition and procedure of Standing Committees (with the exception of the Scottish Standing Committee). (Paragraph 8.)

The distinction between the nucleus of the Committee and added Members to be abolished; the maximum size of a Standing Committee to be 50 and the minimum size 20, as at present; the size of a Committee appointed to consider minor Bills


not to exceed 20–25; the numbers required to form the quorum and to render the majority effective for the Closure to be expressed as one-third of the membership of the Committee, fractions being counted as a whole, instead of the present fixed alternative numbers.

The Government agree with these Recommendations, but are of the opinion that the duty imposed upon the Clerk of a Standing Committee to call the Chairman's attention to the absence of a quorum should be retained.

(v) Announcement of selection of Amendments by the Chair on Committee and Report stages. (Paragraph 14.)

In the last Session of the last Parliament, the then Chairman of Ways and Means made known his selection of Amendments to the Finance Bill and the final list of Amendments and new Clauses was numbered. The final marshalled lists of Amendments have been numbered this Session in respect of the Local Employment Bill and the Betting and Gaming Bill, now before a Standing Committee. It is believed that these arrangements are to the general convenience of the House.

The Government accept the Committee's view that if this practice were adopted the Chair must reserve the right to alter the selection of Amendments as the debate progresses and that the preliminary announcement cannot be regarded as binding on the Chair.

Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means have been consulted and give their approval to these Recommendations.

(viii) Ten Minutes Rule Bills to be limited to one on any one day. (Paragraph 18.)

(ix) Week's notice to be given of Ten Minutes Rule Bills. (Paragraph 19.)

The Government agree that Motions for leave to bring in Bills proposed by private Members on Tuesdays and Wednesdays under Standing Order No. 12 should be limited to one on each of those days and agree that a week's notice should be given of such Motions.

(xv) Requirement of seconders to be abolished except upon ceremonial occasions. (Paragraph 28.)

The Government agree with this Recommendation.

(xxi) Money resolutions to be exempted business for three-quarters of an hour. (Paragraph 35.)

The Government agree with this Recommendation.

(xxi) Motions to suspend Standing Order No. 1 to be moved at moment of interruption of business. (Paragraph 35.)

The Government agree with this suggestion.

(xxiii) House to support Mr. Speaker in checking number and length of supplementary questions. (Paragraph 38.)

The Government agree with this Recommendation.

(xxiv) Number of Oral Questions allowed each day to be reduced from three to two. (Paragraph 39.)

The Government are in favour of this Recommendation and have consulted Mr. Speaker, who will give effect to it.

(xxix) New form to be used for sanctioning virement. (Paragraph 45.)

A new form of the Resolution will be proposed which will make clearer the point at issue and provision made for the Resolutions to be considered in Committee of Supply.

(xxxiii) Time allowed for a Count to be increased from two to four minutes. (Paragraph 51.)

The Government agree that it would be convenient to increase the time allowed for a Count.

(xxxiv) Business statement to announce business for week beginning with the Tuesday following and ending with the next Monday thereafter. (Paragraph 52.)

So far as is practicable, the weekly statement of business will include the proposed business for the following Monday week.

(xxxvi) Drafting Committee to be set up on the Standing Orders. (Paragraph 56.)

The Government agree with this Recommendation and propose to set up a drafting Committee to review the details of the Standing Orders after the proposed changes have been agreed to by the House

Recommendations which have been discussed with Mr. Speaker

(xvi) Practice relating to Privy Councillors' rights in speaking to be altered. (Paragraph 29.)

The Government consider that this matter is best left to the discretion of the Chair.

(xviii) Method of ballot for adjournment Motions to be altered. (Paragraph 32.) (Half-hour Adjournment.)

Mr. Speaker is in favour of this Recommendation and will give effect to it if it is the general wish of the House.

(xxxi) Precedence not to be withheld from matters of Privilege provided that they are raised within 24 hours after the first opportunity. (Paragraph 29.)

The Government have consulted Mr. Speaker and agree with him that it would be an advantage for the Chair to be given notice of complaints of Privilege before they are raised by hon. Members in the House. In such cases the precedence which Privilege matters have over the Orders of the Day should not be withheld provided

(a) that notice is given to Mr. Speaker at the earliest opportunity, and
(b) that the matter is raised at the sitting of the House next following that during which the notice was given.

The following examples show the operation of the precedence rule in relation to Privilege:—

1. Alleged breach of Privilege in national newspaper on Monday.

Present practice: Must be raised on Monday at 3.30 p.m.

Proposed practice: Notice given to Mr. Speaker on Monday before rising of the House could be raised on Tuesday. But if no notice given, Tuesday would be too late.

2. Alleged breach of Privilege in local newspaper on Monday.

Present practice: Must be raised on Tuesday at 3.30 p.m.

Proposed practice: Notice given to Mr. Speaker on Tuesday before rising of the House could be raised on Wednesday. But if no notice given, Wednesday would be too late.

3. Alleged breach of Privilege national newspaper on Friday.

Present practice: Must be raised on Friday at 11 a.m.

Proposed practice: Notice given to Mr. Speaker before rising of the House on Friday could be raised on Monday. But if no notice given, Monday would be too late.

Recommendations already implemented

(vii) Methods to deal with obstruction in Standing Committee on Private Members' Bills. (Paragraph 17.)

The Chairmen's Panel have considered this Recommendation and passed a Resolution reported to the House on 16th November providing that, if at any two meetings of a Committee on a Bill the Committee is adjourned for lack of a quorum before 12 noon, the Bill should go to the bottom of the list of Bills before the Committee and remain there until all other Bills committed to the Committee have been disposed of.

(xi) Earlier presentation of Private Bills. (Paragraph 22.)

The House agreed to the necessary amendments to the Private Business Standing Orders at the end of the last Session of the last Parliament at the instance of the then Chairman of Ways and Means.

(xxxvii) Public Business Standing Orders to be printed separately from Private Business Standing Orders. (Paragraph 57.)

The Clerk of the House has caused the Public Business Standing Orders and the Private Business Standing Orders to be issued in separate volumes of differing format.

Recommendations for further consideration

(vi) Programme for Private Members' Bills. (Paragraph 15.)

The Committee's Recommendation relating to the present arrangement for Private Members' business which is taken on Fridays will be considered in connection with any changes which may be made in the future

(xxvii) Procedure for determining allotted days to be altered. (Paragraph 43.)

The Committee drew attention to the uneven distribution of allotted Supply Days throughout the year and suggested that they should be more evenly spread. This matter concerns the Opposition and preliminary discussion has already taken place and will be followed up in due course.

(xxxv) The Order Paper to be revised. (Paragraph 53.)

The proposals of the Clerk of the House for the revision of the Order Paper are in active preparation. They are complicated and will require careful consideration. Mr. Speaker's approval will be sought to any changes proposed and he will probably seek the advice of the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Licensing Laws

Lord Balniel: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 29th January, I shall call attention to the operation of the licensing laws, and move a Resolution.

Road Accidents

Mr. Darling: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 29 January, I shall call attention to the need for a Royal Commission to consider practical measures for reducing road accidents, and move a Resolution.

Secondary Modern Schools (Examination Policy)

Mrs. White: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 29th January, I shall call attention to the increasing introduction of examinations in secondary modern schools, and move a Resolution.

BILL PRESENTED

CYPRUS

Bill to make provision for, and in connection with, the establishment of an independent republic in Cyprus, presented by Mr. lain Macleod; supported by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, Mr. Harold Watkinson, and Mr. Julian Amery; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'clock and that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock, and that at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: In considering the Motion now before us— which relates, of course, only to Question Time and the Adjournment of the House tomorrow—there are, I think, several lessons to be drawn from recent experience, including today's experience. There are on the Order Book for tomorrow 137 Questions for Oral Answer. Several comments have been made by hon. Members—and by you yourself, Mr. Speaker, today—on the very slow progress which has been made at Question Time recently. Today, we reached Question No. 47; yesterday, Question No. 45; on Monday, we only reached Question No. 37. Yesterday, we managed to get only one Oral Answer from the Prime Minister, owing to what seemed like a slight filibuster by the right hon. Gentleman himself and by his hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Lindsay). I do not, of course, suggest that it was an intentional filibuster, but it had the same effect as if it had been.
I hope that, in opposing this Motion, I shall have the support of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. I take it that, since this is a matter which concerns the House of Commons and is not a matter of party controversy at all, we shall on both sides of the House have a free vote; I hope that the Leader of the House will be decent enough to allow that in this case, at any rate. I hope for the support, among others, of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne), who was disappointed yesterday, when he asked if we could have an Oral Answer to Question No. 49, which was just not reached. As one can ascertain if one looks at the Written Answers at the end of HANSARD today he got a rather dusty answer in writing, as is often apt to happen. So I hope that the hon. Member for Louth, at any rate, will support me.
I hope, also, that there will be support from hon. Members on both sides of the House who have Questions down

for answer orally tomorrow which will almost certainly again not be reached— particularly since it happens that there are three very long Questions put down by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), Nos. 40, 41 and 42. I suppose we may hope just to reach these: they will no doubt be answered by the Home Secretary seriatim, but probably not very succinctly.
So it looks as though the outlook for the Prime Minister's Questions tomorrow is rather doubtful. Hon. Members who have looked at the Order Book will note that there are a number of Questions put down for tomorrow—for instance, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), by my hon. Friend, the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), and others—on a matter which the Home Secretary dealt with in part today, when he answered a question about his statement on sanctions against the Republic of Ireland.
When the Home Secretary himself reads HANSARD tomorrow morning, I am sure that he will hope that those Questions to the Prime Minister will be reached tomorrow, because he will find that he has left the House and the country and, of course, the people of Ireland in a state of considerable doubt about his intentions. When he was pressed today by hon. Members behind him who evidently take a rather ferocious view of this matter and, clearly, were urging him to come out strongly in support of sanctions—

Mr. Speaker: I dislike having to interrupt the hon. Member, but clearly he cannot go into a discussion of individual Questions. For the purpose of the point to which his argument is directed, the assertion that they are of importance is sufficient.

Mr. Driberg: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for that guidance. I was merely trying to illustrate how essential it is for the Home Secretary's own reputation as Leader of the House, and as Secretary of State, that we should be in a position to put those Questions to the Prime Minister tomorrow, so that the position can really be clarified, because it was left in considerable doubt today, when the right hon. Gentleman said that some answer which had been quoted in the Press, or an answer he


gave today, I forget which, was only one of two answers."
One of the troubles about the right hon. Gentleman is that he always gives two different answers to the same question. So we all hope that tomorrow—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not follow, even if that were true of the right hon. Gentleman, as to which I express no view, what it has to do with the hon. Member's argument on this procedural Motion.

Mr. Driberg: I will try if I may, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, to submit to you how it could be relevant to this motion. It is relevant because, as I say, if it be true that the Home Secretary has left the House and the country in some doubt about his real meaning today, it is essential that we should get these Oral Answers from the Prime Minister tomorrow, and I am suggesting that it is very doubtful, on recent form, whether we shall get to Questions Nos. 52, 53 and 55 tomorrow. That is surely directly relevant to the Motion
That this House do meet tomorrow at Eleven o'clock and that no Question be taken after Twelve o'clock.
I am opposing the Motion so that Questions may be taken after 12 o'clock, so that we can reach Question No. 55, etc. That is the point I was trying, in my very clumsy way, to make, and I am grateful, to you, Mr. Speaker. for your guidance.
We had quite a lot of discussion today, after Questions were over, about the future of Question Time, and so on, and the Leader of the House has stated that there are recommendations which we shall be considering. I would seriously suggest to him that tomorrow might be an occasion for a little experiment in liberty. If he allows a free vote on this Motion, it is at least arguable that a large number of Members—at least all those, from both sides of the House, who have put down 137 Questions on the Order Paper, all of which they want answered orally or they would not have starred them—will vote with me against the proposal
that no Question be taken after Twelve o'clock".
So I hope, as I say, that the Leader of the House will allow a free vote on this Motion, that we shall defeat it, and

that those Questions will be taken after 12 o'clock tomorrow till all the starred Questions have been called—which would, I suppose, probably take the House a couple of hours in all, instead of the usual 55 or 56 minutes for Question Time. Then the business on the Adjournment could be taken by an extra hour being given after 5 o'clock and the House would adjourn at 6 o'clock, having lost no time for the Adjournment. No harm would be done at all, and a great many oral answers would have been given to the large number of Members who seriously want them.
There is, for instance, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) who has a Question down asking for some information about a book called "Lolita". I am sure that he would like to have an Oral Answer. There is Question No. 67, by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), which concerns a constituent of his serving a sentence of seven years' imprisonment. This, I feel, is a particular illustration of the value of Oral Answers at Question Time, because I am quite sure that tomorrow my hon. Friend will get a Written Answer which will give him nothing at all—whereas, if he had the opportunity tomorrow to put that Question orally, with a supplementary couched in his usual eloquent terms, he might possibly convince the Home Secretary that his constituent ought to be discharged at once from imprisonment. As things are, for the long weeks of the Recess, this unfortunate constituent of my hon. Friend will remain in Oxford Prison.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind you that the rules of the House and the Manual of Procedure care so tenderly about individual rights and anything which concerns the good name of individuals, not only Members of the House but anyone outside, that the very exceptional procedure is allowed that, if there is any Question casting an aspersion on anyone which ought to be answered quickly, that Question can be put by any Member of the House, not necessarily by the Member who has put it down. That just illustrates what great importance the House attaches, as Parliament always should, to the rights of the individual. I say, therefore, that


Question No. 67 tomorrow should be put and answered orally.
I have referred already to the very unsatisfactory and, I am sorry to say, sometimes downright misleading Answers which we receive in writing from Ministers when our Questions are not reached orally. Only yesterday I had an Answer from the Attorney-General which, according to my information, is factually quite incorrect. I give this merely as an illustration, Mr. Speaker, and I beg you not too—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is delightfully ingenious, but he must not go, by way of illustration, into the details of his Question.

Mr. William Yates: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If an hon. Member wishes to put a Question by Private Notice tomorrow about an exceptionally urgent matter which concerns his constituency, may he do that?

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the Chair, if it be submitted.

Mr. Driberg: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) for that intervention. That, of course, is one way round the difficulty.
Another partial way round the difficulty would be for the Prime Minister, or other Ministers to whom there are Questions put down for Oral Answer tomorrow, to ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to answer them at the end of normal Questions. But that would involve them in the invidious task of selecting what Questions they thought seemed particularly important; and, of course, it is always just possible that some Minister might prefer not to have to answer a Question orally. That possibility has not escaped us.
It seems to me, therefore, that the simplest way round these difficulties for all hon. and right hon. Members, on the back benches and the Front Benches, is to oppose the Motion and allow Questions to run their full length tomorrow.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Is my hon. Friend trying to move an Amendment? Does he understand that, if we vote the Motion down, we shall meet tomorrow at 2.30?

Mr. Driberg: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. We should, of course,

meet at 2.30. That is a very tricky one. I think, however, that I have ventilated the case which I wanted to ventilate, and the Leader of the House is probably seized of the importance we attach to the oral answering of Questions put down with a star.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I wish to raise a point supplementary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has said. One of the difficulties about Questions which are unstarred is that one can never be sure of getting an Answer to them on the day for which they are put down, whereas one can always be sure of getting an Answer to a starred Question even if it is obvious from the first that it will not be reached that day.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will see to it that all the Departments put into tomorrow's HANSARD the Answers to unstarred Questions which are now outstanding, or that would have been answered tomorrow, so that we shall not have to wait until it pleases a Minister to give us an Answer at some time in the New Year to Questions to which Answers were desired before the House rose for the Recess?

4.25 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has opposed the Motion that we do meet tomorrow at 11 o'clock, because he wishes Questions to continue for more than an hour and that all Questions should be taken.
The first answer to him, according to the procedure of the House which has been respected for many years, is that this particular Motion follows a pattern which has never been departed from, namely, that on the day we adjourn we meet at 11 o'clock, Oral Questions are answered until 12 o'clock, and there are facilities, to which my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) referred, for Ministerial statements, and, after that, the time is arranged, at the discretion of Mr. Speaker, for private Members to air subjects on the Motion for the Adojurnment of the House.
What the hon. Gentleman is really doing is to put forward a general plea for an extension of Question Time at the


end of the sitting, contrary to all precedent. Although there is every reason for answering Questions, owing to the beauty and excellence of the Answers that will be provided by my colleagues, I think that there is an even stronger reason that we should not depart from Parliamentary precedent on this occasion. The hon. Gentleman has given various examples of Questions which may or may not be answered. I shall endeavour to obey your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, by not going into them in detail. The fact is that there will be Written Answers to these Questions which hon. Members can receive.
In answer to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I should find it quite difficult to ensure absolute compliance with his request, but what I can do, if I cannot get absolute compliance, is to endeavour that Departments should write to hon. Members who have Questions down on the Order Paper if it proves impossible to give an Answer to a Question on the last day of this particular sitting before the Recess. I can at least do that. It is only the time factor which makes me anxious not to give a promise to the right hon. Gentleman, but I will do my best to meet his wishes.

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in considering procedure, that a good many Questions are put down as starred Questions which might very well be unstarred if hon. Members could be sure of getting an unstarred Answer on the day they put a Question down?

Mr. Butler: That general question is one which we can discuss inside the Administration, and I think that it would be particularly for the convenience of Parliamentary procedure.
If there were that reliance on the part of hon. Members in the sense desired by the right hon. Gentleman, it might certainly take some of the burden off the time for Questions which are starred for Oral Answer. So I will certainly look into that. I shall also look into his particular request, subject to the difficulty of complying with it absolutely owing to the time factor and of getting in touch with everybody in time.
I quite appreciate the importance which the hon. Member for Barking

attaches to Questions. As I said earlier, in answer to the short interchange that we had on procedure generally, I did receive a letter from him, the object of which was to extend Question Time to a full hour and not to take out of it the time for Prayers and the time for notices of other forms of business. All that can be raised in the debate we should expect to hold on our return. Nothing is barred from consideration.
I think, however, that the hon. Member would really be going too far—as a Member who has sat in the House before for that beautiful part of the world from which I come, he must be filled with reason and some sense of artistry —if he did not feel that he would make a great inroad into the whole history of our Parliamentary development if he caused us to depart from the normal practice on the day we adjourn. I hope that his constitutional sense will prevail and that later, after the Recess, we may be able to meet some of his more importunate demands.

Mr. Blackburn: Is it strictly correct that Private Notice Questions could be taken tomorrow? If we adhere strictly to the Motion, that will require that no Question can be taken after 12 o'clock. Would that involve Private Notice Questions as well?

Mr. Butler: It is my business, in the variety of avocations which I have to fill at present, and the duties I perform, to work as far ahead as I can in arming myself with the necessary citations. I am informed that this point has been raised in the past, and I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that on 9th April, 1952, Mr. Speaker ruled that Private Notice Questions can be asked.
Although the Motion is in this form, I understand that the general rule would cover the possibility of a Private Notice Question. It would also cover the possibility of Ministerial statements being, as they would be then, in order, and as they would be on a normal day after 3.30. The only difference then would be that some of the private Members' time which would otherwise be taken up on the Adjournment would be taken up immediately after twelve o'clock.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House do meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'clock and that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock, and that at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 26th January.—[Wr. R. A. Butler.]

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I rise to oppose this Motion because, whilst I agree that the Government deserve a very long holiday and that the Opposition are entitled to have a respite from facing the Government, I feel that it is not right or proper that the House of Commons should adjourn to enjoy a Christmas holiday when, as I understand it, six decent, honest people are to languish in gaol over this Christmas for no other reason than that they, rightly or wrongly, decided to send out leaflets suggesting that certain people should take part in a demonstration. I am not a member of, or associated in any way with, the Committee for Direct Action against Nuclear War. I am not in any way—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but this seems remote from the procedural Motion before us.

Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Two close personal friends of mine, men of undoubted integrity, are involved in this matter. The sentence was given today. There is to be another meeting on 2nd January at which other people will take their places in order to distribute leaflets. The law which is applied is a law which has been under animadversion for years and under which the magistrate is demanding an undertaking which he knows will not be given. I respectfully suggest to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this is a serious reason to advance against the Adjournment of the House.
It may be that the right hon. Gentleman, who is always courteous and helpful, would receive one or two of us later in the day if we asked. May I add one other word, because if I do that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I need not interrupt

again and I have no desire to delay the House. We should make it clear that we are acting as a matter of principle and are not associated with any appeal on behalf of these people. We are making this request on our own responsibility and not because they have asked us.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne) rose—

Mr. Lewis: Before my hon. Friend rose I was giving you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the House my reasons why I felt it would be wrong for this House to adjourn when we thought there was an injustice confronting some of Her Majesty's subjects. I went on to explain—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot go into that point in detail on this procedural Motion.

Mr. Lewis: I agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was not going into detail. I mentioned in passing that six people were in gaol and that leaflets had been distributed. I was going to develop the point that many of my constituents are now actively distributing leaflets who have said that they will be acting—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Member is now going into the matter in detail.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I put it to you that there is really no reason why my hon. Friend should not be allowed to go into some detail on this point and that it would be in order for him to do so? I can give the reasons in two minutes. This is a matter for which the Government have executive responsibility in two ways. First, prosecutions of this kind can only be taken with the leave of the Director of Public Prosecutions and—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The point we are discussing is the date to which we shall adjourn.

Mr. Silverman: As I understand it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the point that is being made is that the House should not adjourn until the Government have discharged to the House their executive responsibility in this matter. That is one of two ways in which the Government have executive responsibility. The


other is that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is also the Home Secretary, and it is his duty in that capacity to advise Her Majesty about the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but that does not arise on this Motion.

Mr. Lewis: But. Mr. Deputy-Speaker—

Mr. Silverman: Just a minute. I am afraid that I am not making myself very clear. With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I put my point again? It has always been held to be in order in these discussions for hon. and right hon. Members to give reasons, based on the failure of the Government to act in ways in which we think the Government ought to act, why we think the House should not adjourn until the Government have, in fact, done so. That practice has not previously been broken. I am saying that there are two ways in which the Government could satisfy the House now, and that we should not adjourn until they have so satisfied the House. It is in order (1) that the Director of Public Prosecutions should not institute proceedings of this kind, and (2) that the Rome Secretary will advise Her Majesty to exercise her prerogative of mercy in order to set at liberty for Christmas people who are so far from being disturbers of the peace that their entire action is directed towards preserving the peace.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot go into the merits of that case on the procedure Motion, which deals merely with the date of the Adjournment. Every point raised must have some relation to the Motion before the House.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I recall to your memory the fact that on several occasions, at various periods when Recesses have been called, debates have taken place, and Mr. Speaker and the House have listened, on why the House should not go into Recess until matters in, say, Africa have been resolved? The merits and demerits of why the House should not go into Recess have, in fact, been debated here for some hours. I am not asking Her Majesty's Government to take any action in Africa or in the Colonies. I am asking Her Majesty's Government to give a safe-

guard and an assurance that if we agree to this Motion to go into Recess until the end of January my constituents will be protected. I am entitled to ask for protection for my constituents and at the moment I am not sure in my mind that they will be properly treated and have their democratic rights preserved.
Why do I say that? Because I know that at the moment they are circulating copies of a certain leaflet which I have seen and in which there does not seem to me to be anything wrong. The leaflet calls upon Her Majesty's loyal subjects to take part in peaceful demonstrations and states that under no circumstances should there be any violence. I want to be sure that if this House adjourns, as is suggested by the Motion, and does not meet until January, I shall have an assurance—if the Home Secretary will listen for a moment—that my constituents who are now actively distributing those leaflets, who have signified their intention of going to the demonstration and who are at the moment going round the country rallying their supporters—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that has nothing to do with this Motion.

Mr. Lewis: I will try to make it a little simpler for the House. I am trying to explain that there are constituents of mine, and of hon. Members opposite and of my hon. Friends, who are now in grave danger of having their liberty taken away. I am suggesting that I must oppose this Motion, because if I do not there will be no chance for me to speak on behalf of my constituents until the end of January. Hon. Members opposite may not be concerned about their constituents' complaints, but I am about mine. This is not a hypothetical issue; this is a case of people having been imprisoned for no other reason than that they have distributed leaflets.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member in order in doing what amounts to asking Her Majesty's subjects to disregard the law, which has already been established by the courts, and asking for an undertaking that the constituents he referred to will receive protection?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not concerned with the merits or demerits of the observations of the hon. Member for


West Ham, North (Mr. A, Lewis), but I am concerned with the question whether they are in order, and I am finding it very difficult to see that they are.

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps I can try to explain again. I am keeping to the terms of the Motion
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday 26th January.
I was suggesting that the House should not adjourn tomorrow until 26th January, and trying to explain why. I thought that I had clearly explained one of the reasons, which was that six people are languishing in gaol. You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have asked me not to develop that point and I will not, but I have also pointed out that hundreds of other people throughout the country, including many of my constituents, have decided to distribute leaflets. If that is a crime, I suggest that before the House adjourns I should be allowed to ask for some guarantee from the Home Secretary that my constituents will be allowed to distribute leaflets or to attend any demonstration they may care to, always providing that if they commit any felony, misdemeanour or other crime they must obviously have—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The rights or otherwise of the hon. Member's constituents to distribute leaflets cannot have any relevance to the Motion which is before the House.

Mr. Lewis: If my constituents are going to be arrested or imprisoned over Christmas, surely I have a responsibility to see that their case is aired in this House? I cannot do that if the House is in Recess. Once we go into Recess the matter cannot be debated until after 26th January.
I am now preparing to explain to the House and to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, why I feel that I must oppose the Motion. I must do so if only to give satisfaction to my constituents and to ensure that they will have the opportunity, which Her Majesty's subjects have enjoyed for so long, of expressing their point of view, taking part in any demonstration and distributing any leaflets, with the proviso that if they break the law they shall pay the penalty.
I am asking the Home Secretary whether he will show his magnanimity by giving the assurance for which I have

asked on behalf of my constituents, and also saying that since this is the Christmas season he will see that the people to whom I have referred are released for Christmas.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I need not detain the House for more than one minute. Before we agree to this Motion —which is sometimes debated and sometimes goes through formally—we should be given a little more information by the Leader of the House as to the steps that are being taken, before the ratification of the E.F.T.A. Convention, to provide an opportunity for a further discussion of some of its aspects. I have every respect for the Chair and every sympathy with it, but I want to point out that in the debate which took place last Monday, owing to the fact that speeches were made by many maiden speakers and also by Privy Councillors, only one back bencher—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is getting very far from the Motion.

Mr. Hirst: With respect, I am explaining why I am introducing this question. I must give my right hon. Friend some idea of the point to which I wish him to reply or he will not be able to do so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot raise any question he likes. It must be relevant to the Motion before the House.

Mr. Hirst: Certainly it must be, and, with every respect, in my judgment it is, although I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We have now had a discussion of about three-quarters of an hour and if I cannot have one minute it is a little unfair. The House is entitled to know what steps the Government will take before we formally ratify this Convention. Because of this long Adjournment it seems that we may be denied the opportunity of having a further discussion of the matter before ratification. We know that there are some very important aspects which have not been fully discussed.
You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, know as well as I do that certain provisions which are most vital to the textile trade, such as those dealing with countries of origin, have been inserted against its advice. I want to know whether we shall have


an opportunity for a further discussion before we ratify this Convention which vitally affects the whole pattern of our trade and should not be dismissed in one day's debate. If my hon. Friend can give an undertaking that he will discuss the matter with his colleagues I will be satisfied, but I think that I am entitled to make my point. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you felt inclined to pull me up before I had in opportunity of doing full justice to my case.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to protest because, in addition to having six weeks' holiday, the Ministers representing Scottish interests seem to have departed already. It was almost inevitable that some Scottish grievances would be raised in the course of this debate, and I regret the very bad example shown by the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Lord Advocate—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That matter does not arise on this Motion.

Mr. Hughes: I wish to protest against the House going into recess for six weeks to celebrate Christmas. Six weeks is a very long time in which to celebrate the anniversary of Santa Claus. Scottish Members have a special grievance, because Christmas is not a recognised holiday in Scotland. We start our celebrations on New Year's Eve.
In view of the general state of affairs in Scotland, for which country the Govearnment do not have a mandate to legislate at present, there must be a strong feeling there that the Government should not send the House on holiday for six weeks. I wonder what the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland, or any other Minister would say if the miners of South Ayrshire decided to go on holiday for six weeks to celebrate the New Year.
We in Scotland wish to point out that several important questions still await answers. If, in the course of the next few weeks, we receive adverse replies to some of the questions we have been putting to Ministers, what is likely to happen? There is one outstanding question. Everyone in Scotland wants to know what efforts the Government are to make to bring the motor car industry

to Scotland. We want to exert the greatest possible pressure on the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all the other Ministers connected with the economic state of affairs in Scotland, so that the economic needs of Scotland shall not be neglected. How are we to do that if the House is not even meeting?
How are we to put other rather pertinent questions? We wish to put them not to the Home Secretary, but to the Ministers responsible for Scotland. How are we to put our case before the President of the Board of Trade on matters of economic paramount importance?—[An HON. MEMBER: "Send him a letter."] I would not mind writing a letter to him, but I would not know whether it would be answered for another six weeks. We have the grievance in Scotland that, in addition to hon. Members not coming back to the House until 26th January, there are to be another six weeks before we can even put Questions to the Ministers.

Mr. William Ross: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) realises the gravity of the situation.
Then there is the Local Unemployment Bill, which affects Scotland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That cannot arise under this Motion.

Mr. Hughes: I am only pointing out that the Report stage and Third Reading of that Bill have yet to take place. That Bill concerns the whole question of unemployment affecting a very large number of constituencies in Scotland, especially Kilmarnock, Lanarkshire and the City of Glasgow. We are told that the Bill will be the first effort of the Government to solve the unemployment problem in Scotland. Is it to be shelved for six weeks, during which time the House will not have an opportunity of discussing this urgent question?
Then there is the question of the Cunarder. This is a very serious problem, affecting workers in the west of Scotland. They may have to take not six but 60 weeks' holiday if the


Government do not come forward with a definite statement as to whether or not the Cunarder is to be built. I know that there is a difference of opinion. I am voicing not only opinion in the west of Scotland, but that of hon. Members from Northern Ireland, if any of them are here, and of hon. Members who represent the Tyne constituencies.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot pursue that question on this Motion.

Mr. Hughes: Let me then, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, pass to the overwhelming, supreme and paramount question facing the Scottish Standing Committee. If the House of Commons does not meet the Scottish Standing Committee will not be able to continue its deliberations on the important question of the determination of the Government to nationalise part of the transport affecting the west of Scotland. Many questions are being asked in Scotland about the Government's action in this respect. People in Scotland want to know why, once the Government had decided to push forward with a Bill for nationalising transport in West Scotland, they should stop and hold the matter up for six weeks.
There are further questions awaiting the Scottish Standing Committee. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House does not like the Scottish Standing Committee, because he has no mandate to legislate there. I confess that these are the only reasons which I could think of on the spur of the moment why the House should not decide to take six weeks' holiday at a time when there are so many urgent questions facing us.
Let me turn to colonial questions and those affecting international policy. The whole question of discussions about the Summit Conference and nuclear arms—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not arise on this Motion.

Mr. Hughes: May I point out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that according to the Prime Minister the question of the Summit Conference was one to be decided within a few days. Now the few days has lengthened into six weeks.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That has no relation to the date on which this House adjourns.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. There is to take place in Paris in the next few days a very important conference which is related to the ultimate Summit Conference. If we adjourn, as is proposed, it will not be possible to discuss the Paris Conference and it is, therefore, surely relevant to the Motion for the Adjournment to bring this in.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) raises the whole question of the Summit Conference, which, clearly, is not affected by the date of the Adjournment.

Mr. Hughes: With all respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that was the very last thought that was in my mind. I was thinking only in terms of space and time. How are we to ask the Prime Minister when the Summit Conference is to take place if the Prime Minister is not here, and what will Mr. Khrushchev think of us? He is urging on the Governments of the world the urgent need to call a Summit Conference. Mr. Khrushchev will be beginning to wonder whether Great Britain is really justified in celebrating the season of peace on earth and good will towards men if he cannot get an answer about the Summit Conference.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is going far beyond the terms of the Motion.

Mr. Hughes: I am about to draw to the close of my peroration. There is still the question of how long we are to wait before we know whether nuclear arms are to be provided for Germany.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his observations to the terms of the Motion.

Mr. Hughes: I thought, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you would not object to my peroration. I thought that it was relevant to the subject.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I want the hon. Gentleman's peroration to be in order.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. Is it not in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to explain to the House why he believes that it is wrong for the House to adjourn tomorrow to 26th January, when he feels that it should adjourn for only two weeks, or


perhaps on Christmas Eve, so as to enable an opportunity to be given for discussing these issues?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire can make his own speech.

Mr. Lewis: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that may be a "Wise Alec" reply, but I was asking a serious point of order. I was asking whether my hon. Friend would not be in order if he wanted to explain to the House why we should adjourn a week later to enable him and other hon. Members to discuss the points which he has in mind.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a hypothetical question.

Mr. William Warbey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I point out that the Ministers responsible for the affairs to which my hon. Friend was about to call attention, namely, the question of the provision of arms for Germany and negotiations on arms for Germany, are at present engaged in business in Paris and cannot be back in this country for two or three days. Therefore, is it not in order for my hon. Friend to suggest that the House should remain in session until next week so that they can come to the House and make a statement?

Mr. Hughes: I think that hon. Members realise what, very ineffectively, I was trying to say.
I wish to thank the Government for choosing 26th January instead of 25th January as the date of our return. In view of the refusal of the Government to honour the bicentenary of the birth of Robert Burns on 25th January, I almost expected that they would decide to call back the House of Commons on that date and so offer a further insult to Scotland. I thank the Government for their consideration in that respect.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: If we accept the Motion that is before us we shall adjourn tomorrow and resume on Tuesday, 26th January. That means that this year we shall be rising much earlier than hitherto and starting again much later. I question the wisdom of that. From the circumstances which are pertaining in my constituency at present, I am quite sure that my constituency will

be very dissatisfied with what the Government propose.
In Ayrshire, we had a visit from the Prime Minister during the General Election campaign. He spoke at Stewarton. He told us that one of the first things the Government would do would be to bring forward a Bill relating to unemployment and that no time would be lost before that Bill passed into law in order to enable the Government to do something really dramatic about unemployment in Scotland. We have had the Second Reading and the Committee stage of that Bill. We had an intervention during the Committee stage from the Leader of the House, who was concerned about the progress of the Bill. He wanted it through quickly, but his intervention very nearly lost him the opportunity of getting the Bill through Committee that night. It showed a great lack of knowledge and appreciation of reactions of hon. Members.
The Government have got the Committee stage over, but further stages of that Bill have to be held up until 26th January. What logic is there in that? It is a Bill which every hon. Member whose constituency is affected by unemployment wanted to examine with scrupulous care. Yet we have had it steam-rolled through the House of Commons and are to go on holiday for six weeks. This is very difficult to understand in view of the promise made to Scotland by the Prime Minister, albeit that Scotland did not believe the Prime Minister. We have to remember that he is not Prime Minister by the will of the people of Scotland. Neither is it by the will of the people of Scotland the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland hold their positions. The Conservatives in Scotland now have 31 seats as against 38 Labour seats. There is one independent Conservative and one Liberal—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That does not arise on this Motion.

Mr. Ross: It arises to this extent, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The will of the people of Scotland, as expressed through their representatives in this House, is not in favour of adjourning the House for six weeks and denying Scottish hon. Members the right to put to the Government important matters relating to Scotland.


I have been questioning the Prime Minister. I went to see him with a delegation from Ayrshire, which included the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] We went to see the Prime Minister about an order for aircraft which probably would help to keep alive the one small section of the aircraft industry in Scotland. The week before last I asked a Question of the Prime Minister. He told me that it would be answered by the Minister of Aviation. I asked a Question of the Minister of Aviation on Monday and got the answer that a statement would be made soon by the Minister of Defence.
I understand that that statement is to be made tomorrow. That statement will tell the people of Ayrshire that the Government, which promised to do so much for Scotland and for Scotland's rights, are turning down Prestwick's claim in regard to the Pegasus aircraft and are giving the order to Canada. That statement will not be made in the House of Commons, but outside the House. We shall have no opportunity of examining it, questioning the Minister and raising the matter, before 26th January. I do not think it fair, even to the Government, that they should be denied this form of justifying their action, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister was willing to see a delegation from the firm concerned, the work people in the firm, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Members of Parliament from both sides of the House.
It is only right that a statement of that kind should be made when the House of Commons is sitting, to enable us to question the Ministers concerned and to get public justification for policy in this House.
A firm in Prestwick draws workers from South Ayrshire, Central Ayrshire and Kilmarnock. A year ago it employed nearly 2,000 people, but already, because of the Government's failures, impotence or indifference, the number of employees is about 1,000 and is to be still further cut. As the representative in this House of many of those workers I shall probably not have an opportunity of putting a Question on the matter before the month of February, Will the Leader of the House look into this from the point of view of the good faith of the Government?
The Scottish Press carries this story in full and is asking what the position of the Government will be, but the House of Commons is to be denied the opportunity of discussing the matter. I want to make my protest in relation to what the Government propose to do. I think it unfair to Scotland in view of the small share it has of the aircraft industry, and unfair to Ayrshire, which already has more than 7,000 unemployed. Once again, valuable teams of designers and draftsmen will flee the country and probably go to the overcrowded and over-industrialised Midlands.
I hope that the Home Secretary will appreciate that we are serious about this. We in Scotland are as human as other people, and like long holidays, but I agree with my hon. Friends who would willingly sit for another week to discuss these matters. We certainly do not ignore the Christian festival of Christmas, but we should like it in Scotland, and certainly in Ayrshire, to be a much more prosperous one for the people who are likely to be thrown out of employment by the decisions of the Government. I think that I should have the right before the month of February to discuss a decision taken by the Government in the month of December.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has referred to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Hon. Members from English constituencies fail to appreciate the position we Scottish Members are in. Questions about education in Scotland go to the Secretary of State. I shall not be able to ask a Question of the Secretary of State for Scotland on the subject of education until about March. We had a debate on roads the other day, but the Secretary of State for Scotland did not even add his name to the Government Motion. Questions on transport and roads in Scotland go to the Secretary of State for Scotland, not to the Minister of Transport. It has been suggested that hon. Members shall have the number of their Questions cut from three to two per day, but in England and Wales there are about seven Ministers who may be questioned, whereas in Scotland we have only one.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That does not arise on this Motion.

Mr. Ross: I agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The general point that I am making does not arise, but the position is that we will not be able to put Questions, whether they be three Questions or two Questions, until after 26th January. Because of the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland in the programme it means that he will probably not appear to answer Questions before March.

Mr. E. G. Willis: It is worse than that. We have not had a chance to question the Lord Advocate at all since the Recess, and we are now not likely to get the chance to do so for another two months.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend has also been denied the chance of putting any supplementary questions to express his Lack of satisfaction with the Answer that he has received.
We will be denied the opportunity of questioning the Government for an excessively long time. I recall that when the Local Employment Bill—

Mr. R. J. Mellish: What my hon. Friend said conveys the impression that only hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies have problems. I should like to make it clear that hon. Members representing English and Welsh constituencies have a number of complaints about transport. The last occasion on which Oral Questions on transport were answered was on 7th November. The next occasion on which we shall get any Oral Answers will be in the latter part of February. We also have a justifiable complaint. This is a very poor Government.

Mr. Ross: I am sure that my hon. Friend would have more cause for complaint if the same Minister answered not only Questions on transport, but Questions on education, agriculture, forestry, fishing, electricity, roads, and the Home Department.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: All this would be the same, whatever the date of the Adjournment.

Mr. Ross: The length of the Adjournment and the delay in reaching the Minister of State for Scotland aggravates the dissatisfaction that we feel.

Mr. Mellish: Would my hon. Friend agree that it does not matter who answers, so long as the answers are intelligent?

Mr. Ross: I appreciate that. It is a long time since we had intelligent Answers on a Tuesday.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Member deal with the Motion?

Mr. Ross: It was my hope that the Government would continue with the Local Employment Bill and get it through. There is a grave danger that because of this long Adjournment—this is strictly relevant to the point of a six weeks' Adjournment—the educational efforts of hon. Members on this side of the House during the few days that we spent on the Committee stage of the Bill will be wasted. We had to educate the Ministers on their Bill. They were just beginning to grasp the points that we were putting forward when we came to the end of the Committee stage.
This delay of six weeks will mean that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the President of the Board of Trade will have forgotten everything they learnt about the Bill and we shall have the hard task of re-educating them on Report. For those reasons it is wrong and unfair to Members representing Scottish constituencies—even hon. Members on the other side of the House—to adjourn for this long period.
Let us consider the position of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). It means that if the House does not meet until 26th January we shall not have the privilege of hearing him make his maiden speech until after that date. I mention that because he has been complaining in Edinburgh about the activities of Scottish Members on this side of the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come back to the Motion.

Mr. Ross: We will be denied the privilege of hearing the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West making his maiden speech fiercely attacking his Government for their misdeeds in relation to Scotland.
I hope that the Leader of the House appreciates that we are genuinely concerned about the failure of the Government to carry out their promises to the


people of Scotland that they would tackle unemployment in Scotland realistically and with a sense of urgency. We do not consider that the Local Employment Bill shows any sense of realism or urgency. The decision to adjourn the House for six weeks shows considerable lack of a sense of urgency, and is contrary to what the Government proclaimed a few weeks ago.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am not prepared to vote for this Motion, certainly not until we have had assurances from the Home Secretary on a number of points that my hon. Friends have raised. I will confine myself to only one point, and I want to go back to the question which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis).
One of the proudest memories of this House concerns the day some 300 years ago when hon. Members of the House forcibly held the Speaker of the day in the Chair to prevent the House of Commons from adjourning. Their reason —and it is just as valid a reason today—was that the House of Commons is the guardian of the people's liberties and ought not to adjourn while those liberties are in danger, and certainly not while those liberties are under immediate attack by the Executive.
It is on that basis that I oppose this Motion today because in the incident to which my hon. Friend referred there is involved a question of the most fundamental importance to the liberties of the subject. I am sure that the House of Commons today will not be less conscientious a trustee of those liberties than it was 300 years ago.
The Government—and it is the Government who have done it because it can only be done with the leave of the Director of Public Prosecutions for whom the Government are responsible to the House—have invoked a 600- or 700-yearold Statute to prevent a number of people from exercising their inalienable civil rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in this country. While that situation obtains this House has no right to adjourn. If it did it would be abdicating the most important of its functions.
These people have not committed any act that is wrong in itself. They are not charged with any offence against the criminal law. No charge of any kind has been brought against them, and no charge could be brought against them. The proceedings that have been instituted against them do not involve any charge. The Statute does not require any charge to be made or proved. It merely calls upon the prosecution to satisfy the court that there may be some danger that in the future, at some unknown date, some offence against the peace will be committed. They are in prison today, not for anything that they have done but for refusing to enter into a recognisance not to do that which they have every right to do and which is laid upon them by their consciences as a duty to do. The House of Commons ought not to adjourn until we get some satisfactory explanation about this.
These people are to be charged with being disturbers of the peace. What paradoxical irony that is! They are concerned with preserving the peace of this country and of the world. They may be misguided and wrong, and I expect that there are many people who do not agree—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am afraid that on this Motion the hon. Member cannot debate the whole merits of this particular case. He can advocate that the House should not adjourn until this matter has been debated, but he cannot debate the whole merits of the case.

Mr. S. Silverman: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I accept that. [Laughter.] I am being perfectly serious about this and I think that the House is concerned with a serious question. I am not attempting to debate the whole merits of the question. I am not a member of this Committee. I would not myself do what these people have done. That is not the point, but I will not advise hon. Members to vote against the Motion without explaining to them why these issues of civil liberty are involved. I cannot do that without going to some little extent—I agree not into details— into what the situation was and what the incident amounted to.
I say that for this Government at this time of day and in the present situation of the world to regard the endeavours of half a dozen conscientious citizens to


call the attention of their fellow citizens to the dangers to world peace of a particular situation as being a ground on which under a 600-year-old Statute they can be called upon to enter into recognisances to keep the peace is as absurd as it is monstrous.
I say that the House of Commons ought not, and I hope will not, adjourn until the Home Secretary has satisfied us that this will not be done. If he does not, I personally am prepared to take my opposition to this Motion into the Division Lobby.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: I wish to support my hon. Friends who have spoken against the adjournment of the House until 26th January. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) who with admirable initiative was able to show the Minister of Transport how to do his job. I apologise, too, to those hon. Members who wish to speak in the important debate which is to follow. I also wish to support, and I do so in a similar way, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).
I want, in a spirit of no facetiousness, to impress this matter on the attention of the Leader of the House. We cannot possibly take a holiday for Christmas while hundreds of British protected persons are incarcerated in British gaols without any charges being brought against them. I wish to speak about that matter, but before I do so I want to say something about the Monckton Commission. Because of the energy and enthusiasm of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies we were unable yesterday to reach Questions down on the Notice Paper to the Prime Minister relating to this subject. Therefore, we have not had an opportunity of hearing from the Prime Minister what the final composition of the Advisory Commission on the topic of Rhodesia and Nyasaland is to be.
It is important that Parliament should know what are the Government's intentions towards this Advisory Commis-

sion, not only regarding its final composition but also its terms of reference and the job which it is going to try to undertake when it eventually arrives in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
The House will be well aware that the native movements of Central Africa have already announced that they intend to boycott the Commission because of its unsatisfactory composition and because its terms of reference are so restrictive. I would like the House before rising for the Christmas Recess to have not only an opportunity of hearing a statement from the Government on their intentions, but also an opportunity of debating this very important question.
The future of 7½ million people in Central Africa is at stake. I fear that if we rise for the Christmas Recess and allow the Government to go on bulldozing Central Africa into Federation against its will we shall have on our hands there a situation which will be very difficult indeed to control. The House has not had an opportunity of hearing from the Government about the final composition of the Commission. We have been waiting for a statement from the Prime Minister. We have not had it. I submit that it would be wrong for us to adjourn for the Christmas Recess until that statement has been made to the House and until we have had an opportunity of questioning the Prime Minister upon it.
I also submit that we should have a statement from the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations as to the action which the Government intend to take with regard to their reserve powers in relation to legislation passed in the Parliament of Southern Rhodesia. We have already heard that Nyasaland is a police State. Southern Rhodesia is also a police State and is being bolstered up as such by legislation passed in the Southern Rhodesian Parliament.
As I have said, I submit that it would be quite wrong for this House to adjourn for six weeks before hearing a statement from the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations as to the Government's intentions with regard to the repressive legislation passed by the all-European Parliament in the Colony of Southern Rhodesia.
We have not had an opportunity to debate this matter although we have been


pressing the Government for such a debate for a long time. It so happens that the reserve powers of the Government only apply for twelve months and, frankly, that time is running out. There are 2½ million people in Southern Rhodesia who look to this House to protect them from the Fascist legislation of the Parliament of Southern Rhodesia. The Government have these powers, but they are not exercising them. We submit that we should have an opportunity of debating this matter before we rise for the Christmas Recess.
I now come to the question of the prisoners. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North referred to the imprisonment of certain people engaged in the activity of distributing leaflets. I support him entirely in what he said on that matter. I understand that very important organisations, such as the Women's Co-operative Guild, have sent protests to the Home Secretary about this. Again I submit that it is important that we should have a statement from the Home Secretary on this matter before we adjourn.
I also wish to talk about 500 people in Central Africa who are still in gaol although they have been exonerated by the Government's own Commission, the Devlin Commission.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I suppose the hon. Gentleman would release all Mau Mau.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am not talking about Mau Mau. The hon. Gentleman should improve his geography.

Mr. Burden: If the hon. Gentleman could behave as I do and be as restrained as I am in referring to people overseas there would be a much better feeling towards this House by some Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the point I am going to make. Is he really going to be happy over this Christmas?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. Member had better address his observations to the Chair.

Mr. Burden: It so happens that I was talking to my hon. Friend beside me on an entirely different matter. The hon. Gentleman should certainly not interfere with that.

Mr. Stonehouse: This is an added reason for the House having an opportunity to debate the Government's action. The Devlin Commission, which the Government themselves set up, found that these people were not guilty of planning a massacre as was alleged by the right hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) who, I am sorry to say, has been absent from this debate and whom we would have liked to bring into it in view of his association with those allegations. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is now paying great attention. I wish he had been paying attention before.

Mr. Burden: I never pay any attention to what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Stonehouse: As it would appear that the hon. Gentleman would now like to participate in the debate, I think it would be very advisable not to rise for the Christmas Recess before we can have the benefit of his wisdom in any questions he may wish to put.
I submit that it would be wrong for us to spend Christmas round our firesides with a Christmas tree in the room while men like Dr. Hastings Banda are still in prison. I would like the Government to say before we adjourn what they are going to do about them. Dr. Banda is still in prison even though the Devlin Commission found him not guilty. He has been in prison since 3rd March this year. What are the Government going to do about him? Are they, with their alleged respect for British justice, going to allow him to remain in his prison cell without any consideration for his plight?
There is not only Dr. Banda; there are 400 other people of Nyasaland who look to the British people for freedom, but who are still in prison without trial. I submit that before we rise for the Christmas Recess the Government should tell us whether or not they intend to allow these people their freedom. Further, I must insist that before we rise for the Christmas Recess we ought to have an opportunity for much fuller consideration of these questions than we can possibly have this afternoon.

5.31 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I will endeavour, shortly, to reply to some of the points raised in the debate. The hon.


Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), notably supported by the hon. Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), raised the question of certain persons who have refused to enter into recognisances and I should like to make a short statement on that.
The House will appreciate that I have not had an opportunity to get the full facts, but I understand that a right of appeal lies to quarter sessions under the Magistrates' Courts (Appeals from Binding-over Orders) Act, and that, while that is lying, the question of the Royal prerogative—

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Home Secretary has said that he is not fully aware of the facts, but he may be aware that the people concerned have stated quite publicly that they will not appeal, so he need not bring that in.

Mr. Butler: I said that a right of appeal lies. I did not say definitely that they had availed, or would avail themselves of it, because I have not been able to ascertain that. However, I shall certainly pay attention to what the hon. Member says.
I should like to make it clear that if an appeal does lie, and those people intend to take advantage of it, the prerogative of the Crown, exercised by the Secretary of State at any time, would not arise while that right of appeal lies. I shall, therefore, have to find out the exact position in relation to these events before I can give a ruling. I will undertake to go into the matter on behalf of those hon. Members who have argued this point. It would be wrong to make a final statement about it today without giving myself the chance to investigate the whole matter. I will then inform the hon. Members, and reserve any rights that may lie within my power to deal with the situation—

Mr. S. Silverman: I should like to ask just two questions. First, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Royal prerogative of mercy can be exercised as soon as a sentence has been inflicted, and the question of whether the persons imprisoned do or do not appeal against that sentence does not in any way bind his hand, and should not do so in this case?
My second question is this. We are not adjourning today. I know that the Home Secretary has been taken by surprise this afternoon. Nobody would expect him to give an immediate positive and binding answer today, but would he undertake to give an answer tomorrow?

Mr. Butler: I was about to say that I would not go further in respect of any power that I may or may not have until I have had a full report from my advisers, which I have not been able to get while I have been sitting here. I would, therefore, communicate with the hon. Members, or take the line suggested by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, according to the circumstances of my investigation. I hope that they will appreciate that, whether or not the House is sitting, I shall remain as Secretary of State, with the powers in my hand.
I should like now to make a general observation, which applies, I think, to all the speeches we have just heard. Ministers will not be on vacation. Christmas or no Christmas, we shall be performing our duties, and will be able to exercise our powers, Christmas or not. Any powers that I could exercise would be available to me. Further, I must tell hon. Members that I shall be available to see any hon. Members at any time they desire.
If they liked to choose Christmas day I should be very sorry, but, constitutionally, I could not object even to such an inroad into my personal affairs, because in matters of importance such as this, the Executive do not adjourn, and must be available at the instance of private Members who wish to make appeals to them. I think that that answers one or two of the points raised. I will, therefore, reserve this question for further examination and further report before I say any more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) asked whether he could be given an assurance of a further debate before ratification of E.F.T.A. We had a debate on the new Free Trade Association only very recently, and all that I can undertake now is to say that I shall, immediately this debate ends, and before any further discussions arise in which I am involved, have a word with my right hon. Friend


the President of the Board of Trade with a view to telling him what has been said by my hon. Friend.
The main impression made upon me by the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was that the Government have an exceedingly good programme, because this is really the first occasion on which he has praised so many of our Measures and said that he wanted them to be enacted at the earliest possible moment. He used this argument throughout as an excuse for the House to sit, so that, by the beneficence of our programme, we could aid the country further towards its recovery—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Home Secretary completely misinterprets what I said. I was seeking an opportunity to amend these Measures so that they would be really useful.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman and his Friends have done their best with the Local Employment Bill which, as they know, they have discussed at great length. Partly at their own request, and partly at the request of the official Opposition, this Bill was taken on the Floor of the House. Very useful suggestions were made, and we shall certainly proceed—and this answers the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)— to finish the Bill on our return. But to say that we could have finished all stages of this Measure and have had it taken through another place before Christmas is quite wrong. That would have been impossible. Therefore, in tabling this Motion for the Adjournment of the House for the Christmas Recess I do not think that we are doing disservice to the causes of difficulty in the hon. Member's constituency.
Another argument put forward by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire was that it would be impossible either to impress Mr. Khrushchev or to negotiate with him unless the House was sitting. I do not think that that is the case. The House of Commons is a very valuable associate and concomitant of our foreign policy, but there does remain a certain degree of prerogative in the conduct of foreign affairs, and I can assure hon. Members that there will be no delay in pursuing our ends—namely, the cause of peace and further union between

the nations—if the House adjourns according to the terms of the Motion.
As regards Burns day, it was with particular attention to that event that we decided that the House should take one extra day—namely, 26th January—so that the hon. Gentleman would be in a fit state to meet us on the next day. We would have been very much put out had we found him in any way incommoded, and not able to pursue us with his usual relentless zeal on our return.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) referred to events in Africa. These have been fully discussed, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister intends to make a further statement, although there is no further progress to be reported in regard to the composition of the Monckton Commission. It was a disappointment to us that the Opposition could not find it possible to join in that inquiry. We do not want to make the position more difficult, but I think it is at least reasonable for the Prime Minister to take a little time before making a further statement. Had we had the co-operation of the party opposite, we might have brought everything relating to the membership of the inquiry to a conclusion by way of an announcement—

Mr. Stonehouse: Before the Home Secretary leaves that point, will he say what he intends to do about Dr. Hastings Banda?

Mr. Butler: At the moment, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but while the assistance of hon. Members would be valuable, in expressing the emotion which is very naturally felt on such matters, they must also realise that the Executive will still be in harness, and will take any decisions they think appropriate in this or any other matter.
It seems that hon. Members opposite think it extraordinary that we should adjourn for what amounts to 39 days, but I would remind them that under the Labour Government, in 1950–51, we adjourned on Friday, 15th December—which is two days before we now propose to adjourn—and came back on Tuesday, 23rd January. That was exactly 38 days. Taking that particular analogy, I cannot see that we are doing anything more heinous than that Government did.


I do not think that this is a very exceptional move. The average has been about 33 days. I think that we are entitled to relax a little. Coming back, as we did, as soon as possible after the General Election, we have had 41 sitting days. We have had 20½ days on Government legislation, we have given time for debates on the Local Employment Bill on the Floor of the House, we have had three days on Opposition Motions before Christmas, and we have also had four days of private Members' time.
We have quite a good record of work to our credit, and I do not think that this Motion enshrines any new principle or is in any way abnormal. I therefore hope that the House will pass the Motion, and. if so, that hon. Members, refreshed by the rest from their labours, will return in a mood sufficient to justify their existence here and help the country forward with its problems.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: The Motion we are considering invites us to adjourn for a period of 39 days, which, apart from one occasion, is the longest Christmas Adjournment since 1939. The only occasion on which there was a longer adjournment was when the Conservative Government was returned in 1951, when we were told that Ministers could not cope with their problems without having a very long Recess. The results on that occasion were not at all

satisfactory, and I see no reason to expect that they will be any better on this occasion.

It is quite true that in 1950–51 the Recess was only a little shorter, but, after all, it followed several years of beneficent Labour legislation, and we were very naturally somewhat exhausted with our labours, irrespective of the fact that there was a majority of only six in the House of Commons. Therefore, I do not think that that argument is at all convincing.

The Leader of the House also seems to have the queer idea that so long as Ministers carry on it is all right whether or not the House of Commons is sitting. Let me tell him that, bad as we think the Government are in any event, we think they are a great deal worse when we are not here to keep them in order. If there was any doubt about the work to be done, I think the speeches of my hon. Friends have shown that, in fact, there are a great many subjects which we ought to be discussing. Seriously, no case has been made out on this occasion for taking the extra week's Recess. I do not propose to make a long speech on the matter, which has been well argued out. In all the circumstances, and in view of the inadequate nature of the reply, I think we should now divide the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 193.

Division No. 24.]
AYES
[5.43 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Brooman-White, R.
Dance, James


Aitken, W. T.
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Bryan, Paul
Deedes, W. F.


Allason, James
Bullard, Denys
de Ferranti, Basil


Alport, C. J. M.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Burden, F. A.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Balniel, Lord
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Doughty, Charles


Barlow, Sir John
Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Drayson, G. B.


Barter, John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
du Cann, Edward


Batsford, Brian
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Duncan, Sir James


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Cary, Sir Robert
Duthie, Sir William


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Chataway, Christopher
Elliott, R. W.


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Errington, Sir Eric


Berkeley, Humphry
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Cleaver, Leonard
Farr, John


Bidgood, John C.
Cole, Norman
Fell, Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooke, Robert
Finlay, Graeme


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Cooper, A. E.
Fisher, Nigel


Bishop, F. P.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Black, Sir Cyril
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Foster, John


Bossom, Clive
Cordle, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Costain, A. P.
Freeth, Denzil


Box, Donald
Coulson, J. M.
Gammans, Lady


Boyle, Sir Edward
Critchley, Julian
Gardner, Edward


Braine, Bernard
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gibson-Watt, David


Brewis, John
Cunningham, Knox
Glover, Douglas


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Curran, Charles
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Currie, G. B. H.
Glyn, Col. Richard H.(Dorset, N.)




Godber, J. B.
Longden, Gilbert
Roots, William


Goodhart, Philip
Loveys, Walter H.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Goodhew, Victor
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Gower, Raymond
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Russell, Ronald


Grant, Rt. Hn. William (Woodside)
McAdden, Stephen
Scott-Hopkins, James


Green, Alan
MacArthur, Ian
Seymour, Leslie


Gresham Cooke, R.
McLaren, Martin
Shepherd, William


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricla
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Gurden, Harold
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
McMaster, Stanley
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold(Bromley)
Smithers, Peter


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Speir, Rupert


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Madden, Martin
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)
Maginnis, John E.
Stodart, J. A.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maitland, Cdr. J. W.
Storey, S.


Hay, John
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Marlowe, Anthony
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marten, Neil
Talbot, John E.


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Tapsell, Peter


Hendry, A. Forbes
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Hiley, Joseph
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Teeling, William


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Temple, John M.


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Mills, Stratton
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hirst, Geoffrey
Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hobson, John
Moore, Sir Thomas
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hocking, Philip N.
Morgan, William
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Holland, Philip
Morrison, John
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Holland-Martin, Christopher
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Hollingworth, John
Nabarro, Gerald
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hopkins, Alan
Neave, Airey
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Hornby, R. P.
Nicholls, Harmar
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Turner, Colin


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Noble, Michael
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Nugent, Richard
Tweedsmulr, Lady


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Vane, W. M. F.


Hughes-Young, Michael
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Graham
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Iremonger, T. L.
Partridge, E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lehone)


Jackson, John
Peel, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


James, David
Percival. Ian
Wall, Patrick


Jenkins, Robert ((Dulwich)
Peyton, John
Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)


Jennings, J. C.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Watts, James


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pitt, Miss Edith
Webster, David


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pott, Percivall
Wells, John (Maidstone)



Joseph, Sir Keith
Powell, J. Enoch
Whitelaw, William


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Kershaw, Anthony
Prior, J. M. L.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Kirk, Peter
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kitson, Timothy
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wise, Alfred


Lagden, Godfrey
Ramsden, James
Wolrige-Gordon, Pattrick


Langford-Holt, J.
Rawlinson, Peter
Woodhouse, C. M.


Leather, E. H. C.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Woodnutt, Mark


Leavey, J. A.
Rees, Hugh
Woollam, John


Leburn, Gilmour
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Worsley, Marcus


Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.
Renton, David
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas



Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridsdale, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lilley, F. J. P.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Robertson, Sir David
Mr. Sharples.


Litchfield, Capt. John
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)





NOES


Ainsley, William
Boardman, H.
Cliffe, Michael


Albu, Austen
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Collick, Percy


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bowles, Frank
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Boyden, James
Crosland, Anthony


Awbery, Stan
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Crossman, R. H. S.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Baxter, William (Stirlingehire, W.)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)


Beaney, Alan
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Benn, Hn. A.Wedgwood(Brist'l,S.E.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Deer, George


Benson, Sir George
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Delargy, Hugh


Bevan, Rt. Hn. Aneurin (Ebbw V.)
Carmichael, James
Dempsey, James


Blackburn, F.
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Diamond, John


Blyton, William
Chetwynd, George
Dodds, Norman







Driberg, Tom
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rankin, John


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Kelley, Richard
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George
Ross, William


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Ledger, Ron
Short, Edward


Evans, Albert
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Jullus (Aston)


Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Finch, Harold
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Fitch, Alan
Lipton, Marcus
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Fletcher, Eric
Loughlin, Charles
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Foot, Dingle
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sorensen, R. W.


Forman, J. C.
McCann, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas


Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
McInnes, James
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mackie, John
Stonehouse, John


Ginsburg, David
McLeavy, Frank
Stones, William


Gooch, E. G.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Gourlay, Harry
Mahon, Simon
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Greenwood, Anthony
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swain, Thomas


Grey, Charles
Manuel, A. C.
Swingler, Stephen


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mapp, Charles
Sylvester, George


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Marsh, Richard
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Grimond, J.
Mason, Roy
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Gunter, Ray
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mellish, R. J
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mendelson, J. J.
Thompson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Millan, Bruce
Thorpe, Jeremy



Hannan, William
Monslow, Walter
Timmons, John


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Moody, A. S.
Tomney, Frank


Heyman, F. H.
Morris, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Healey, Denis
Mulley, Frederick
Warbey, William


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Neal, Harold
Watkins, Tudor


Hilton, A. V.
Oliver, G. H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Holman, Percy
Oram, A. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Holt, Arthur
Oswald, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Houghton, Douglas
Owen, Will
Wilkins, W. A.


Howell, Charles A.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Willey, Frederick


Hoy, James H.
Paton, John
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hunter, A. E.
Peart, Frederick
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pentland, Norman
Winterbottom, R. E.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Janner, Barnett
Popplewell, Ernest
Woof, Robert


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Prentice, R. E.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Jager, George
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Probert, Arthur
Zilliacus, K.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Proctor, W. T.



Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Randall, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Darling and Mr. Redhead.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 26th January.

TRAFFIC CONTROL (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS)

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill, to make provision for the better control of traffic in England and Wales; and for purposes connected therewith.
My proposed Bill follows on completely from Thursday's debate, when there was almost unanimous agreement on both sides of the House that the only way to handle the developing congestion in London was to give powers to the Minister of Transport to cut across all the authorities at present in being and to take power to control the flow of traffic. My hon. Friends and I were very disappointed that the Minister did not make any statement of policy on this matter. He did not announce any road building programme, although it had been promised in the Conservative Party election manifesto that it would be doubled. He did not promise any legislation to take the power that was necessary. In fact, it was not until the end of the debate, when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary spoke, that we heard for the first time that the Pink Zone was coming to an end. It would have helped the debate if the Minister had made that rather unpopular announcement at the beginning.
The Pink Zone does not meet the problems—nobody pretends that it does —but it has certain palliative value which we hoped would be continued. At any rate, we now realise from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary why the Pink Zone was killed. It was killed by the Ministry of Works, because that Ministry was not prepared for the Royal Parks to be made available for car parking by the public generally in order to keep the Pink Zone in existence. In effect, the collapse of the Pink Zone is an example of the fact that there are vested interests inside the Government as well as outside.
The proposed Bill is a simple one. It states that the Minister of Transport may by Order in Council designate any area or areas of England and Wales as traffic control zones within the meaning of the Act, that he may take such powers over

the public highways and their use as may seem to him necessary for the safe and rapid movement of traffic within each zone, and that Orders in Council under Clause I shall for the duration of the Act supersede any statutory powers hitherto conferred by Parliament. The effect is that we are giving all the powers that are necessary to the Minister in respect of any areas which he considers to be areas of traffic congestion.
Why do we seek to introduce the Bill at all today? The reason is that we still doubt whether the Minister has the power inside the Government to get the necessary authority to do the job. I read in the newspapers today a full survey of the Minister's activities. The Times says:
The Government are still asking for legislation.
The Daily Telegraph says:
Mr. Marples is busy on his comprehensive plan.
The Daily Express says:
The jam-busting Minister of Transport
is doing this or that.
The Daily Mail says:
The Premier approves Supremo Marples
The Star describes the "Marples' Master-plan".
If all this is true, why did not the Minister say it on Thursday? What he said was:
… the House would not expect any comprehensive statement from me. What I thought I would do was to give the House an indication of my first reactions on coming to the job. … Provided that anything I say is not held as committing me, I would like to be frank with the House …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1959; Vol. 615 c. 772.]
When the Bill appeared on the Order Paper, the Press releases came out every five minutes from the Ministry, giving details of what the Minister intends to do.
The Minister said that having control of areas in London was a suggestion on which he would like the views of the House. Last Thursday, that was the suggestion on which he solicited our opinion. Today, it is the "Marples Master-plan". I can only tell the Minister that we believe that some action is called for.


The right hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Hugh Molson) said on Thursday, speaking of his time at the Ministry of Transport:
We were conscious of the problems which were arising, but until quite recently Ministers of Transport were not supported by public opinion and by the House …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1959; Vol. 615 c. 806.]
It is a monstrous suggestion that the House has to push a Minister to do anything, but if that is the policy which is required, then we offer the Minister of Transport a Bill which will give him the power that he needs.
It is not an extension of the Pink Zone idea, because the Pink Zone does not meet the problem. The Bill gives centralised authority in any area that the Minister thinks necessary. He may take the central area, or he may decide to take the London through-routes in order to deal with the congestion there. He can take control in any area that he thinks necessary and decide whether there is to be parking or no parking, whether to continue off-street parking facilities, whether to have the movement of traffic in lanes and whether to control pedestrians. This last power must come. We cannot have a rule that a pedestrian must not walk along the main railway line to Manchester while he can still walk along any street without anyone having any control over him.
These powers are necessary. The public are impatient for action by the Minister. They are interested in him because he seems to be enthusiastic about doing things. He must realise that he will be judged on what he actually does about the problem of traffic it the big cities. There is no question that we could get a 50 per cent. increase in the movement of traffic with our existing roads if traffic engineering had not been neglected by his predecessors. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be one of the first to admit that it was neglected by his predecessors. If his predecessors had done their job, why should there be a need for emergency legislation?
We offer this very comprehensive Bill. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has authorised me to say that we will be quite content to give all facilities to pass the Bill through all its stages in this House tomorrow. Natur-

ally, we had hoped that we would not adjourn tomorrow. We have already opposed the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess, but, even so, we are prepared to try to get the Bill through all its stages in the House tomorrow and to give the Minister the power he needs.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I do not think that anyone will deny the urgency and gravity of the problem with which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) seeks to deal. On the other hand, the hon. Member has not made the problem easier by introducing this Bill. It would be interesting to know from the hon. Gentleman, or from his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, whether, whenever the Government show signs of embarking on an energetic policy, the Opposition intend immediately to introduce a Ten Minutes Rule Bill, thereby giving themselves some claim to saying that they have urged a certain course on the Government.
This has been a very successful publicity operation, but I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman, let alone his right hon. Friend, would seek to make those who sit on the Treasury Bench, and whom the right hon. Gentleman so often describes as "those terrible men", into a set of little dictators, with absolute blanket powers. What on earth is Parliament for? We are here to make laws. While admitting the gravity and urgency of this problem, I for one would be loath to see a whole lot of Ministers armed with blanket powers.
The hon. Member seems to be most optimistic, for the duration of operation of the Bill is six months.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has not seen the Bill. How can he know? In fact, it is eighteen months.

Mr. Peyton: A rumour reached me that it was six months. I am delighted to hear that from the hon. Gentleman, because I suspect that that is a change of mind. Eighteen months makes it a little more sensible than it was before.
We have had an interesting change of heart on the whole of this subject. First, we had a clearly chilly, if not angry, welcome from the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's announcement about the Pink Zone. Secondly, we had a Motion of censure. In a very able


speech, the hon. Gentleman said that he was not critical of the Pink Zone, but that it totally failed to solve the major problem. Whatever he may say about this not being an extension of the Pink Zone, it seems very like a suggestion to create a whole mass of Pink Zones, not merely an extension of just one. The Minister can feel very flattered that his idea has caught on so well in such quarters. Now we have a Ten Minutes Rule Bill to create a mass of Pink Zones and most of the problems with which Parliament should deal are completely left on the shelf.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will put his hand on his heart before he makes any regulations and will say that he has the means and the will to enforce them, because we already have road signs like so much confetti sprinkling the countryside and honoured only in the breach. Questions of manpower, enforcement, spaces and the rights of individuals and local authorities are wholly ignored in the Bill. In dealing with a problem of this size, it is of paramount importance that Parliament should have at least an opportunity of passing an opinion.
I concede at once that the Minister will need very wide powers and, above all, much more money. I hope that very soon he will be able to tell the House that he has been able to elicit from his right hon. Friends at the Treasury an undertaking considerably and drastically to increase the road programme. I do not believe in government by exhortation. There has to be a price tag, not merely a plea for self-discipline from motorists which we have heard ad infinitum. I am certain that with the arrears in the road programme which we face today, we have to be prepared to double up, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell the House that that is to happen as soon as we get back after the Christmas Recess.
I do not wish to keep the House any longer, because I know that the Leader of the Opposition is anxious that his Motion on telephone tapping should proceed, and I should hate to get in his way in any manner. However, I should like to comment that it is somewhat odd that this Ten Minutes Rule procedure, that is, very much a back bench method, should

now be used by a Front Bench spokesman, incidentally a Front Bench spokesman of a party both of whose leaders have had their cars towed away.
It is not for me to make suggestions to my hon. Friends about what course they should follow, but, if I were bold enough, I would say that, on the whole, in this instance it would not be worth the trouble to tow this wretched little Measure away through the Division Lobbies when, after all, it will not do much harm. It is rather like the congested traffic with which it seeks to deal —it will not get anywhere. Unlike that traffic, it will not get in anyone's way. It is a piffling little Measure. The only purpose which it is likely to serve is once again to give us an opportunity to talk about a subject on which many of us feel very strongly.

Mr. Benn: On a point of order. It is not in order for an hon. Member to rise on a Ten Minutes Rule Bill unless he proposes to oppose the Bill. Erskine May is categorical on this question, and I submit that the hon. Member's speech has been an abuse of the procedure of the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): An hon. Member is not supposed to rise unless he intends to oppose the Bill, which is what I thought the hon. Member intended to do.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member has had his say and I have not said anything final. It is not in my power to do so. I am merely weighing the courses open to me.
Publicity may be desirable, but concrete proposals are even more so. This Bill has no such proposals within its covers. I conclude my remarks by saying with all the force I can that my hon. Friends and I hope for a proper, sound coherent Measure which will give my right hon. Friend an opportunity to cope with this most intransigent of problems. We shall be deeply disappointed if he fails in our expectations, although I am sure that he will not do so.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Mellish, Mr.


Popplewell, Mr. Tomney, and Mr. Brockway.

Major W. Hicks Beach: On a point of order. It occurs to me as one who, I like to think, is very interested in private Members' business that this is the first time I can recall leave to introduce a Private Member's Bill being sought from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a point of reminiscence.
Second Reading. What day?

Mr. Benn: Now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that there is no opportunity of having it now.

Mr. Benn: Tomorrow.

TRAFFIC CONTROL (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS)

Bill to make provision for the better control of traffic in England and Wales; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 52.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GENERAL GRANT)

6.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move,
That the General Grant (Increase) Order, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.
Under Section 1 of the Local Government Act, 1958, the Order must be accompanied by an explanatory report, and this has been published as House of Commons Paper No. 36 and laid at the same time as the Order.
The Local Government Act enables my right hon. Friend by way of an amending Order—made in the same way as a General Grant Order—to increase the annual aggregate amount of the general grants for the current grant period, if it appears to him that an unforeseen increase has taken place in the level of prices, costs or remuneration, and that its effect on the cost of providing the general grant services is so large that it ought not to fall entirely on local authorities.
The first General Grant Order made last year prescribed the aggregate amounts of general grant for the years 1959–60 and 1960–61. The primary justification for an amending order now is the effect on the level of remuneration of the recently settled Burnham award to teachers, which had effect from 1st October and will add nearly £9 million to the costs of local authorities in 1959–60 and twice that amount in the following year.
The local authority associations concerned—the County Councils' Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations—and also the London County Council have been consulted. They sent to my right hon. Friend a list of items which in their view should be taken into account in an amending order, together with estimates of the increases in cost caused by each item. Agreement was readily reached with the associations on the items which were eligible for consideration within the terms of Section 2 (4) of the Act, and the local authorities' estimates of expenditure were accepted in all cases except one, in which it was clear to Departments that, because of the way in which the local authority figures had been estimated, they were too low.
The various weightings in the formulæ set out in the General Grant Order, 1958, for the distribution of general grant need revision in order to distribute the increased amounts. The Order contains amended weightings to ensure so far as possible that proportionately the same amounts are distributed through the basic and supplementary grants as before. I commend the Order to the House.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: This is the first occasion on which the House has had a piece of business of this nature. We were told when the Local Government Act, which contains the block grant provision, was before the House, that one of the advantages of the block grant arrangement was that it would enable the central Government to know where they were in terms of expenditure, that it would fix the amount which they would grant to local authorities over a period of years and that that would give financial security to the central Government.
It is interesting to find, therefore, that the very first General Grant Order introduced under the Local Government Act has not been in operation a year before it is found necessary to bring in an increase Order. It suggests that the degree of security given to the central Government is possibly not as great as was claimed by the advocates of block grant at the time the Local Government Act was passed.
Naturally, we on this side of the House will be the last to object to there being an increase Order. We may, however, reasonably raise the question of how far this increase Order is adequate to the situation. It meets certain inevitable increases which have been laid on local authorities as a result of wage and salary agreements. The Parliamentary Secretary did not attempt to claim that it did more than this. That means that certain criticisms made of the original General Grant Order a year ago are still valid and that the Government have not taken this opportunity to deal with those criticisms.
In the first place, the amount of the original General Grant Order was framed on the basis of estimates made by local authorities as to what their expenditure was likely to be during a two-year period, but they had to make those estimates in an atmosphere of Government restrictions on expenditure in the relevant fields. They had been bombarded shortly before they made those estimates with Government circulars cutting down capital expenditure in education and most of the other fields with which the block grant is concerned. They were first told by the Government, "As a result of Government policy, your expenditure will be severely limited." On that basis they were invited to make estimates of how much money they would need and would be able to spend in two years, and they were then provided with the appropriate general grant.
In this increase Order no attempt is made to remedy that situation. Are we to take it that the Government are of the opinion that for the remaining year for which this general grant is current the same restrictive circumstances in the development of education and the other services will prevail as prevailed in the spring and summer of 1958? That

seems a reasonable deduction from the fact that no opportunity was taken in introducing this increase Order to do more than meet the quite inevitable increases brought about by rises in wages and salaries.
We might possibly develop this a little further, and here we are up against the fact which I mentioned at the outset, that this is an unprecedented piece of business in the House and the House has still to establish, by usage and by Rulings from the Chair, exactly what is and what is not in order in debates of this kind. I sought your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and you were kind enough to give me some guidance as to what might be in order in this debate.
I think I am right in saying that if I were to develop at length my view of what things ought to be done in the educational services and cannot be done unless the increase Order is made a good deal bigger than it is, I should, unfortunately, be transgressing the rules of order of the House. I regret that very much, because I could have said a great deal about it.
I have recently been reading the Crowther Report, as no doubt have other hon. Members, and its insistence on the need for an adequate supply of teachers and that this is something which we ought to set about at once. It is something which local authorities could to some extent set about at once in the greater recruitment of part-time teachers if they had the money available, but the original general grant limited what they could do in that respect and made no provision for any extra efforts. This increase Order does not remove any of the fetters in that direction which were put upon them by original Order.
I therefore wish merely to state the matter and to say that the fact that we on this side of the House shall not prolong the debate is not to be taken as committing us in any way to the view that the provision for education and the other services concerned is adequate or that the whole method of doing it by block grant rather than by percentage grant is desirable.
I want to refer to certain features of the Order which I had hoped the Parliamentary Secretary would explain a


little more fully. For the year 1959–60 the aggregate amount of the grants payable to the authorities is increased by £9 million, which is about 2½ per cent. of the previous total. In general, therefore, for 1959–60 there is a 2½ per cent. increase. That is achieved by increasing the various sums of money referred to in the several parts of the very complicated formula which determines the general grant. I find, for instance, that the sum which relates to the number of children in schools in the area of the authority is increased from £0·058 to £0·060, an increase of about 3½ per cent. On that aspect of the formula, we have an increase larger than the whole increase of the grant. That is to be expected, because that is a part of the formula connected with the number of schoolchildren in the authority's area. The cause of the increase is largely bound up with teachers and, therefore, with numbers of schoolchildren.
When I look at the part of the formula concerned with the number of persons under 15 years of age in the population of an area, I find that that is to be increased from £0·52 to £0·53. That is an increase of rather less than 2 per cent., rather less than the average of the general increase of the grant. Why should that be so? The number of persons under the age of 15 is also a factor affecting especially educational expenditure. I am rather surprised, therefore, to find that that figure has not been more greatly increased.
I could pursue this by examining the extent to which each factor making up the total grant has been increased, but that would be wearisome and I do not propose to do it. The Order, as it now stands, is written in a peculiar language of its own. To understand it, one has to refer to its special dictionary, which is the Local Government Act, 1958. If we have future increase Orders of this kind, I hope that the report accompanying them will be a rather fuller document, more understandable without special and detailed knowledge, than the report we have had on this occasion.
We should have in the report attached to an increase Order a statement of how much the aggregate of the amount is being increased and a statement of how much of that money is attributable to each factor in the grant formula,

that is to say, how the whole of the new weightings work out to produce the aggregate figure mentioned in the increase order. It might be useful if we also had a rather larger paper setting out the amount of grant payable to each authority under the increase order. We had that information available at the time the original General Grant Order was published. The little paper which we have now means that different sums of money to those originally planned will be paid to each authority affected by the Act. It would be useful to know what the sums of money are in the case of each authority.
I make the point for future reference that, if we are to have further of these interim Orders varying the amount of the grant, the report should be rather more full, that it should set out the full effect of each change in the various factors making up the grant formula and that we should know what will be the sums of money receivable under the altered grant Order by each of the authorities concerned.

6.24 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Henry Brooke): I am obliged for the brevity and clarity with which the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has spoken. I appreciate that he still does not like the general grant. That is not a matter under debate today, though he is in a minority which is dwindling all the time.
The hon. Gentleman criticised this procedure, or at any rate the general structure which we are seeking to implement, on the ground that the Government must now withdraw the claim that they had made that the general grant system would enable the central Government—I think he meant primarily the Exchequer—to know where they stood financially. There is nothing in that argument.
Unquestionably, if we proceed by way of general grant rather than by the old specific percentage grants it is clearer throughout to the central Government what the cost of the grant to local government during each year will be. I, as the Minister in charge of the original Bill, made it crystal clear, both in Committee and in the House, that there might well be amending general grant Orders from time to time if there was some


substantial change, such as a big new Burnham award, which would thrust on local authorities a burden which it would not be reasonable to ask them to carry without an additional grant aid from the Government.
The hon. Gentleman sought, next, to show that it was a reasonable deduction from the Order that educational provision in the coming fifteen months or so would be inadequate. He should have discovered by now that that old argument is being used by but few in the educational and local authority world. The general grant system, with additions to the annual grant which may have to be made if there is such a thing as a general Burnham award, are not found to be restrictive. When the outturn of this year is known, I have no doubt whatever that a high level of educational expenditure will be seen to have been incurred by local authorities both this year and, so far as one can forecast, in 1960–61. But time will show that. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think that it is a good one. I certainly rebut his charge that the general grant system imposes fetters upon education authorities.
I will look carefully into the hon. Gentleman's detailed points about improving the presentation. I am obliged for suggestions from him or from any other quarter about means by which we can improve our presentation. One must try to steer a middle course. If the explanatory White Paper were very brief it would be inadequate. If it went into enormous detail it might make this difficult subject still more incomprehensible, because one can get drowned in figures.
These changes in weightings are designed, so far as possible, to secure

for the individual local authority the same percentage increase throughout. If it seems, as the hon. Gentleman said, that in certain cases the increase is X per cent. and in another case Y per cent., I assure him that those are not arbitrary figures. They have been carefully worked out to secure the result I have described. All this has been presented to the local authority associations and the London County Council, as the Act directs, and those bodies have been satisfied with the figures suggested.
That brings me to the hon. Gentleman's final point. He asked whether, when bringing in an increase Order such as this, we could set out, as we did with the original General Grant Order, the effect on the individual authority. Frankly, we did not feel that was necessary on this occasion, because the whole purpose of the distribution was to secure substantially the same percentage increase for all local authorities, and we had in mind the difficulty which I mentioned, that one could make these things more difficult rather than more translucent by adding to the material which one published.
I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will have regard to his speech. I will see whether, on future occasions, we can make the presentation any clearer. I am glad to note, from the fact that no other right hon. or hon. Member has risen to speak, that it appears that the way in which we have presented it on this occasion has given reasonable satisfaction to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the General Grant (Increase) Order, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.

TELEPHONE TAPPING

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the failure of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to ensure that no telephone conversations should be intercepted without his express warrant and that material obtained by interception should in no circumstances be made available to any body or person whatever outside the public service; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to carry into effect their acceptance of the recommendations in the Report of the Committee of Privy Councillors appointed to inquire into the interception of communications, presented to Parliament on 28th November, 1957, Command Paper No. 283.
This Motion raises two distinct but related issues. The first concerns the interception of a telephone conversation without the warrant of the Secretary of State, and the second issue goes to the disclosure of material obtained by interception outside the public service to a domestic tribunal. Both of these are of the highest importance for the liberty of the subject. Both are attended by some difficulties. But, in both these aspects of the problem, as it seems to us, the Secretary of State has acted in breach of the acceptance by the Prime Minister on 3rd October, 1957, of the Birkett Committee Report.
I should like to take the two issues, related as they are, separately and in turn and to start with the question of interception. The right hon. Gentleman argued—this argument has been taken up by a number of newspapers—that, since in this case the listening in was done with the consent of one party, and was done on an extension, it really is nothing more than a case of eavesdropping, no different in essence from a policeman hiding behind a curtain to catch a blackmailer. Therefore, it is argued, the police must have this sort of power in order to make effective criminal inquiries.
I wish to make one thing clear straight away. The argument between us here is not about whether or not the police should have the sort of power they used in this case. We are saying they should not use the power off their own bat, that they should have applied for a warrant to the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman then would have had to

decide whether this was a proper case for the application for a warrant, whether it fell within the sphere of crimes and types of offences for which interception is permissible. To say that a warrant is necessary in this case is no more to deprive the police of the power to intercept than saying that a search warrant is necessary deprives the police of the power to search.
Those who argue—this has been argued in many quarters, including some liberal-minded newspapers—that this is only a case of legitimate eavesdropping seem to me to be on a rather dangerous and slippery slope. The line running from eavesdropping all the way to telephone tapping is a line made up of a series of gradations, and it is not at all easy to draw a logical line of distinction. After all, telephone tapping itself is only a form of eavesdropping, and one must be very careful how far one carries this eavesdropping argument One can only distinguish between eavesdropping on the one hand and telephone tapping on the other because one draws an arbitrary line—not one which can be wholly defended in logic—which is absolutely necessary to the securing of our liberties. Just because it is not easy to draw a logical line, it is absolutely essential to draw a clear and firm line in these matters and to draw it decisively on the side of liberty.
I have given a great deal of thought to these difficult questions, both as a member of the Birkett Committee and in this matter, as soon as the facts which we are now discussing first became known to us. It seems to me that the point at which we must draw a clear line, even though it be a little arbitrary, if our liberties are not to slip and slide from us, is, first, at the point where the police came in, and, secondly, where a telephone is concerned. It seems to me that one must cling to those two points or one is in grave danger of being led into very perilous paths, as I think the facts of this case show.
It was not—as the right hon. Gentleman kept on implying when answering Questions on 3rd December—just somebody listening in on an extension. It was the police listening in. Now let us consider what the police did without a warrant authorising them to do it. They first of all instigated a conversation and


then they deliberately and secretly listened to that conversation and recorded it. They recorded the words of a man, who knew nothing about what was happening, with the aim of incriminating him. And all that was done without a warrant. I say that our liberties are really in danger unless we stoutly announce and affirm that every citizen in this country must have the absolute assurance that this sort of thing does not happen, that this sort of action is not done to him by the police without the warrant of the Secretary of State. I think that equally we get into danger unless we draw a line, and a firm line, between eavesdropping at large and eavesdropping on the telephone. Everycitizen—

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that if somebody was being threatened and asked police officers to come and listen to see whether in fact it was a threat, that could be done only if the person concerned, before or after going to the police, had the authority of the Secretary of State?

Mr. Gordon Walker: I think there might be occasions, as indeed there are in the case of a search, when there is a need for emergency action to be taken, which the police take at their own risk and for which they subsequently get cover. Of course that can happen. A search can be conducted without a warrant in certain circumstances, but it should not be so unless it is a real matter of vital urgency that it should be done. Wherever it is possible the police should get a warrant for a search or an interception, and that is what I said.

Mr. John Hobson: Mr. John Hobson (Warwick and Leamington) rose—

Mr. Charles Pannell: Really! This debate is becoming like a bear garden.

Mr. Hobson: The right hon. Gentleman must surely face the situation that a search warrant is wholly unnecessary unless the owner of the premises objects. If he gives his consent, a warrant becomes unnecessary.

Mr. Gordon Walker: When someone is having a conversation intercepted he cannot know about it. Someone who is being searched can know about it. For

that reason one needs a greater protection. At any rate, I affirm—though other hon. Members who may speak later may take a different view—that unless we take this clear stand that the police need a warrant for an interception, we shall find our liberties in danger, as I shall show in a moment.
Every citizen who uses any means of communication provided by the State should have an absolute assurance that his communications, his talks or his letters, should not be deliberately intercepted by an agent of the State without a warrant. Here again the facts in this case that we are discussing show where a failure to preserve this sort of distinction leaves us. I agree there can be more than one view on this, but I beg hon. Members who differ from me to consider where the argument may lead them.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said on 3rd December, in answer to questions, that this was not a case of tapping because there was no interception of a public telephone system, by which I take it he meant that it was not done at or through a public telephone exchange which then would have been under the control of the Postmaster-General who, at any rate since 1937, has not acted in these matters without the Home Secretary's warrant.
I see that point, but what actually happened in this case? Apparently the police intercepted a conversation, not at an extension in the ordinary sense of the word, but at an exchange in a private block of flats—indeed, at the very point at which the telephone line entered into the public telephone system. If they had gone one stage further along the line they would have been at a public telephone exchange. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman on 3rd December implied strongly that they ought to have gone to the public telephone exchange, because he said:
What I should like to see happen is the thing"—
he was referring to the facts and what was done in this case—
done by normal intercept, with the authority of the Secretary of State …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 1388.]
—in other words, that it should have been done at a public telephone exchange. This means, in other words, that simply by taking another point along the line at


which to make the interception the police avoided the need to ask for the Secretary of State's warrant, which they would have had to do if they had gone one stage further along the line to make the interception through a public telephone exchange.
The defence by the Secretary of State of the use by the police of this device opens rather appalling prospects. When the Birkett Report was accepted, we all thought that our rights were protected clearly because the Secretary of State's warrant would be needed for each and every interception. That was the general impression that we got from the acceptance of the Birkett Report. But now we find that by the use of the simple device of finding the right point on the line other than at a public exchange at which to make an interception, apparently any policeman in the land can intercept any conversation at his own discretion and without a warrant.

Mr. Peter Kirk: It must be done with the consent of one of the parties making the call.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I have a difficult argument to develop. It is fairly close-knit. I will, of course, give way if hon. Members insist, but if they would make their points if and when they catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful.
Any policeman in the land, if he picks the right point and gets the consent of one party, can intercept the conversation unknown to the other party at the other end—something that we did not think could happen to us. They can do this now with the blessing of the Secretary of State. When these very events have occurred, the Secretary of States comes to us and says, "Everything is quite all right. It is nothing to do with me. This was not telephone tapping at all." We are now in a worse position owing to the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman on 3rd December. He has fully justified this. Any policeman who acts in this way can count on the same sort of protection from the right hon. Gentleman. He only has to use these simple devices in order to avoid the need to get a warrant.
The Secretary of State urged in his defence that he could do nothing because he has no control over the provincial police. He said on 3rd December:

I am not myself responsible for the provincial police in any particular…"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December. 1959; Vol 614, c. 1388.]
This argument seems to me wholly misconceived and ill-advised, and it bears the mark, to my mind, of an excuse thought up to explain inaction. The power and duty of the Secretary of State to control all official interception through his warrant does not derive from his capacity as a police authority. It derives from his capacity as Secretary of State.
Look again where this argument of the right hon. Gentleman leads us. The Birkett Report in Appendix II lists the authorities and agencies which used the power to intercept between 1937 and 1956, and we see there a number of authorities which are certainly not in any way under the direct authority of the Secretary of State, but all of which needed a warrant in order to intercept—for instance, the Customs, the Port of London Authority and chief constables of provincial forces. I hope we shall not hear any more tonight of the argument that the right hon. Gentleman cannot control interception by the provincial police because he cannot control the provincial police.
Where does that lead us? It means that bodies like the Customs, the Port of London Authority and the provincial police, which are not directly under the control of the Home Secretary, could, with these simple devices, intercept without a warrant in the same way as has been done in this case with one party not knowing. It can be done without his warrant, with impunity and, indeed, with his blessing, if they can find a convenient way of intercepting at a point other than at a public telephone exchange, and—although this is not an absolute necessity—with the consent of one of the parties. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman would lead further. If they could find a place other than a public exchange, they could intercept with impunity even without the knowledge of either party. I think the right hon. Gentleman's arguments would lead us very near to that conclusion.
All our safeguards in this matter rest on the assumption that the warrant of the Secretary of State is necessary for any official interception, and our safeguards are rendered nugatory unless the


right hon. Gentleman accepts the complementary responsibility to see that there is no official interception, in any meaning of the word, without his warrant. Unless he can insist on that and enforce that, our safeguards that there can be no interception without his warrant are rendered nugatory. The law can be broken, of course. Someone may exceed his authority and may tap without a warrant. But then the Secretary of State surely has the duty at least to condemn the act, to repudiate it and take steps to prevent its repetition and not come here to cover up the action, to defend it and, therefore, throw into doubt the liberties of which we thought we were certain.
In connection with this interception, the right hon. Gentleman used one other main argument with which I should like to deal. He said that the facts of this case, in so far as they relate to interception, fall outside the scope and intent of the Birkett Report. He said that on a number of occasions. As a member of the Committee that produced that Report, I must challenge that contention. The Committee was not limited, as the right hon. Gentleman constantly implied in his answers, to a consideration of tapping through a public telephone exchange. For instance, we went into the question of unauthorised tapping. There is a section of the Report which deals with unauthorised tapping.
Of course, by definition, unauthorised tapping will occur at a point other than the public telephone exchange. We were told, as the Report makes clear, that this never happened and there were no cases known of unauthorised interception at a point other than the public telephone exchange. But we did, none the less, suggest that Parliament should consider making unauthorised tapping illegal. It is now very important that we should consider that. If unauthorised tapping had been made illegal, as the Birkett Report suggested, this action of the police which we are now discussing would certainly have been illegal.
The whole tenor and burden of the Birkett Report was that this odious and furtive power, as we described it throughout the Report, should be continued only on the assumption that there should be no official tapping of any kind without a warrant. That is what the Committee

said in its Report, and that was the underlying theme running through it all. If there can now be official tapping, with one person not knowing and his words being listened to, then we have not the liberties we thought we had and we have not the assurance we thought we had when the Government accepted the Report.
I come now to the second aspect of the matter, the disclosure of intercepted material outside the public service. I can argue this more shortly, because it is almost unanimous public opinion that in this matter the Secretary of State was wrong. I begin by reading the recommendation in paragraph 154 of the Birkett Report:
We recommend that in no circumstances should material obtained by interception be made available to any body or person whatever outside the public service.
It would be hard to find more comprehensive terms than that. That recommendation was intended to cover, and I think it did cover, every conceivable case of a disclosure of intercepted material outside the public service, and this was specifically accepted by the Government. That should have settled the matter. After the Government had accepted those very clear words, we should have been able to take it for granted that this would never happen again. But it did happen. It happened in flat violation of the Government's acceptance of the Birkett Report.
The subsequent disclosure seems to me to make the original interception even worse. It means that the words of a man were secretly taken down by the police, without his being warned and without his knowledge at all, and they were then used in evidence where he was in jeopardy. This makes the original interception, the secret taking down of words without warning, much worse than if there had been no disclosure. Since the conversation was instigated by the police, it is very difficult not to make the assumption that the conversation was meant to incriminate the man who was being listened to secretly. One cannot absolutely draw that conclusion, but it is improbable that the police would instigate a conversation without some idea of what would be said and the sort of answers which might be trapped out of this man secretly. This really is an


absolute departure from all normal and proper police behaviour. Anyone with any regard for the liberty of the subject must be gravely disturbed by that event.
I will put to the right hon. Gentleman a very simple question to which, I hope, he will give a simple answer one way or the other. Why was the material not destroyed when it was decided not to institute criminal proceedings? The Birkett Report is absolutely clear on this matter. In paragraph 151, the Committee said:
The information so obtained "—
meaning information obtained by interception for the detection of crime—
goes only to the police and, until the recent case affecting Mr. Marrinan, had never been disclosed to any outside person and had always been destroyed.
This was a Report on all the evidence which had been given to the Committee. Did the Secretary of State find out why the police departed in this case from what the Birkett Committee was told was the universal practice? Why did he not order the destruction? If it is in fact the case that such information was always destroyed, as the Birkett Committee was told, why was it not destroyed in this case?
The core of the matter is that this disclosure was made by the Secretary of State on his own discretion. He could have stopped it. He decided not to stop it. He tells us that he could have stopped it only by invoking Crown privilege. This is true only on the assumption that the material was not destroyed. When one makes that assumption, I agree that he was in that difficulty.
None of us wishes for an unnecessary extension of Crown privilege, but I agree with The Times in this matter, that it would have been in this case the lesser evil. After all, the Government gave Parliament a clear and categorical pledge that such a thing would never happen again. In the light of that pledge, the Secretary of State had art overriding duty to make it effective and not to act as if the pledge had never been given at all. That is really how he acted. The pledge of the Prime Minister was made just a bit of paper.
The right hon. Gentleman, of course, had a very difficult decision to make. We have sympathy with him. It is very hard to make these decisions. But so

had Lord Tenby a difficult decision to make in the Marrinan case. He, too, considered that he was acting in the interests of justice, but the Birkett Committee condemned him. If the Committee had bean examining the present Secretary of State's action in this case, it is more than likely, I think, that it would have used the same grave words, that the decision of the Secretary of State "was a mistaken decision".
This is not the occasion to raise the broader issues which come out of this, though there are very many, except that I should say that I believe that the time has come when we really should debate the whole subject of interception. The Birkett Report, with its important suggestions for legislation, has never been debated, nor, may I add, have my reservations to the Report ever been debated. I should very much like that to happen.
There is one broader issue I should mention, namely, the proposal in the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Bill that certain bodies, private tribunals, should be given the same subpoena powers as the General Medical Council. Clearly, we must take steps to limit those powers from being extended to compelling the disclosure of intercepted material. But that would not be enough because there are all the existing bodies which have the power already, and they are not the subject of Bills before the House. We must take an early opportunity to clear the matter up over the whole range of private tribunals.
The immediate issue before us is the one in our Motion which deals with the actual conduct of the Secretary of State in a particular case. This we desire to bring home to him. He is falling too much into the habit of rushing automatically to the defence whenever the use of authority is called in question. Frankly, we are becoming a little tired of the way in which he tries to escape his responsibilities in such cases by pleading his doubts, his difficulties and the advice given to him, and then diverting attention from what he has done or has not done by raising a smoke screen of even bigger issues. I hope that he will, for once, squarely face the charges we make.
We say that he should have said far more clearly than he did that the police should have come to him in this case for a warrant, and he should openly


rebuke their failure to do so. He must recognise his own responsibility to ensure that no official interceptions are made without his own express warrant. If necessary, legislation must be passed, though, until now, we all thought that it was not necessary and it could be done by the power of the Secretary of State. He should never have allowed the disclosure in this case. Those are the charges we make against him.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly values his reputation as a liberal Home Secretary, but let him remember that a reputation for liberalism in a Home Secretary must rest not just on words but on deeds, and on deeds in particular cases in which our liberties are threatened or abused.

7.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): When the Opposition requested a day to discuss this matter, and, above all, when they placed their Motion on the Order Paper, I was the first to realise the importance of the subject and the need for a debate. We have now arranged this debate before we adjourn, and although we may find that we have differences of opinion on the matter—and that is clear to me after listening to the speech of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker)—this debate may do something, at any rate, to illustrate how the Government feel in this matter and certain action which I propose to take.
I endeavoured to set out the facts of this case in the statement which I made previously. To the best of my knowledge, all the relevant information has, in substance, already been put before the House. I accept the circumstances which turn our debate more on to the general issues than on to this particular case but I will just remind the House of the facts.
In April this year, the Reading police, on behalf of the deputy coroner, were investigating circumstances of which the House must be taken to be aware. In general, it may be said that in the course of this investigation the police took a statement on 20th April from a subscriber in which she mentioned that she had had a telephone call from the person primarily concerned and it seemed likely that he might get in touch with her

again. At the suggestion of the police, she rang him up and with her agreement a police shorthand writer listened to the conversation on an extension and took a note of it. [Interruption.] I dare say that the hon. Gentleman may have one in his own house.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I understood that it was not an extension but the exchange at the bottom of the flats.

Mr. Butler: It was the extension of the telephone from her own room. It was all within the same private telephone and in the same house. It was an extension of the telephone of the subscriber within the same house and not on the public telephone system. That is the only valid distinction, not being a telephone engineer, that I can draw. The House will remember that the police eventually concluded that there were no grounds for instituting criminal proceedings and that, after the inquest, the deputy coroner thought it right to bring the case to the attention of the General Medical Council.
A solicitor acting on behalf of the Council subsequently interviewed the subscriber to whom I have referred. She disclosed to him that the telephone conversation had taken place on 20th April and had been overheard by the police. A subpoena was then served on the shorthand writer to give evidence at the hearing before the Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical Council and to produce the shorthand notes of the telephone conversation. The Chief Constable thereupon referred the matter to me on the question of whether Crown privilege should be claimed.
As I have told the House, after taking the advice of the Law Officers, I decided that it should not be claimed, and I will deal fully in a few minutes with my reasons for coming to this conclusion. In the meantime, I should like to emphasise that the police were required by subpoena to produce this information. There was no question of my authorising or consenting to the disclosure of the record of the telephone conversation to the General Medical Council. My sole concern was to consider whether I should intervene by making a claim to Crown privilege. Let us get that quite clear.
When the right hon. Member for Smethwick requested you, Mr. Speaker,


to rule that this case should be considered under Standing Order No. 9, he referred to the interception by the police of a telephone conversation without the express warrant of the Secretary of State, the disclosure to a domestic tribunal of material obtained by interception and the consent given by the Home Secretary to this disclosure. I do not accept that as an accurate description of what happened, nor do I accept, now that we have the Motion on the Order Paper, that there has been any failure on my part. I will take these charges together.
The phrases used by hon. Members opposite embody complete misconceptions about what happened in this case—the first about what was done by the police and the second about what was done by me. With regard to the action by the police, there has been quite a determined attempt from hon. and right hon. Members opposite to say that what happened in this case is exactly on all fours with the practice considered by the Birkett Committee. This is confirmed by the terms of the Motion. Indeed, in our previous exchange, one hon. Member quoted paragraph 101 of the Birkett Report—the right hon. Member for Smethwick quoted paragraph 154 of the Report—which states that in no circumstances should information obtained by interception—that is in the terms described in the terms of reference of the Birkett Committee—be disclosed to any outside body. With that recommendation, I have already said that I warmly agree, and the practice of the Government is firmly based upon it. No information so obtained has been or will be communicated to any outside body.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have jumped a little. Did not the Birkett Committee recommend that evidence obtained for criminal purposes should be destroyed when it was no longer needed for those purposes? The right hon. Gentleman was faced with the existence of that evidence. Why was it not destroyed? If it was, he would never have been put in this position.

Mr. Butler: As I have already explained, this case is not on all fours with any recommendation of the Birkett Committee. It is part of a criminal

record of a criminal investigation by the police. It is for the police, including the Reading police, to decide for how long such records should be kept. It has been asked why I did not intervene. I knew nothing about the matter. When the Reading police received the subpoena they still had the record. It had not been destroyed. It was not a record on the same lines dealt with by the recommendation of the Birkett Committee.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Should not general instructions be given that these things should be destroyed? Even though this case is not completely on all fours, it is similar.

Mr. Butler: By saying that, the right hon. Gentleman has conceded a great deal of his case. I am ready to consider how much influence could be brought to bear on the police either to keep their records secret or to destroy them. To say that this case is on all fours with the Birkett Committee is a travesty of common sense. What happened was that the police listened with the agreement of one party, to a conversation between that party and another person on a private telephone extension or on the extension—I accept the amendment—of the party who gave the consent.
I see in the Observer and New Statesman, both doughty champions of personal liberty and not always as friendly to the Administration as they are to right hon. and hon. Members opposite, categorical statements—I have the cuttings here—that this case did not involve the tapping of a telephone. Further, it is said in the New Statesman that the telephone in question was not tapped. I agree with these journals. I think that they are right. I think that they have a correct view of the situation, but they refer to the important point, to which I shall come later, about the use made of any record like this. That is a most important point which I shall not avoid but will discuss in detail.
There is the clearest possible distinction—it is right to emphasise it—between listening, as was done in this case, to a single conversation with the agreement of one of the parties which, as I told the House on 3rd December, involves no infringement of the law, and the secret interception by the Post Office of


all the telephone calls of a particular individual on the warrant of the Secretary of State. It was with the last point alone that the Birkett Committee was concerned.
I hope that the House will accept the importance of this distinction and will appreciate that there was in fact no departure from the recommendation of the Birkett Committee or from the pledge of the Prime Minister, which related and could only relate to operations over which the Government have control through the requirement to obtain a warrant. In answer to part of the Motion on the Order Paper I will tell the right hon. Member for Smethwick that to that pledge we adhere.
Hon. Members, however, may nevertheless feel that it is a matter for concern that any material obtained by the police by listening-in to a telephone call, even with a subscriber's consent, should be passed on to an outside body, and that is a matter with which I shall be dealing. Meanwhile, hon. Members may ask what can be done about cases of listening in on an extension by the police, as distinct from interception of the public telephone system under warrant with the authority of the Secretary of State. Here I must point out, and despite what the right hon. Member for Smethwick says, drum it home, as I have done on another occasion, that the Secretary of State is not responsible for the administration of the provincial police.
The Prime Minister has just informed the House today that Her Majesty the Queen has approved the proposal to set up, under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Willink, a Royal Commission on the police which will be concerned, among other things, with their constitutional position. The terms of reference have been announced. They will necessarily cover the extent, if any, of the accountability of the police to the police authorities, to the Secretary of State and to Parliament, for their actions. The right hon. Member for Smethwick asked a question about that this afternoon.
I must not seek to prejudge the result of that inquiry. I can now only act as the law stands, and as the law stands it has hitherto been regarded as a fundamental principle of our constitution that

a Minister of the Crown has no power to intervene in the day-to-day operations of the police and in particular in their methods of detecting criminals, bringing blackmailers to justice, and otherwise conducting criminal investigations. Under the constitution, the police possess a measure of independence and autonomy, and any politician who attempted to take that away would be the biggest enemy of personal liberty and justice in this country.
Having made the constitutional position clear, I can tell the House that I have no reason to think that there is widespread listening-in by the police. [An HON. MEMBER: "How does the right hon. Gentleman know?"] I have made great inquiries. I have consulted several forces and have consulted with my own inspectors. What inquiries I have made—and I am sure that the House will be glad to hear this—assure me that this method of investigation is very rare indeed. I can find few instances of it on my inquiries.
There are many methods of inquiry—such as overhearing conversations, reading a letter at the invitation of the recipient or, in a Shakespearean context, standing behind the arras—which may be distasteful but which on occasions it might be necessary for the police to use in their constant battle against crime. I am aware of the crime wave and it would not be right for me to single out this particular method of investigation from others involving a disclosure by one party without the knowledge or consent of the other.
However much hon. Members ask me, I cannot see that it would be practicable to prohibit the police by legislation from using this means of inquiry. I daresay the police will read the result of our debate. I am quite certain that the view in the House is that this should be used sparingly and only for that purpose. I will certainly see that the police are aware of the views of the House.
This leads to the second question—whether the local police, having been subpoenaed to produce their evidence of the conversation, a claim of Crown privilege should have been made, and whether the Home Secretary should do so if any similar cases should arise in future. I should like to remind the


House of the considerations to which the Home Secretary must have regard in considering whether to make such a claim. First, and most important, executive interference with the processes of justice is inherently undesirable. When a court or tribunal has to try a case, it is obviously desirable that, as far as possible, all relevant evidence should be before it, otherwise one or other of the parties, and sometimes it is the defendant, may be prejudiced.
Some kinds of evidence, however, must be excluded on the ground of the public interest, and Ministers can secure some evidence being excluded by formally objecting on that ground to its production. Ministers, however, do not have an absolutely free hand in doing so. Lord Simon laid down the proper test in these words:
The Minister in deciding whether it is his duty to object …ought not to take the responsibility of withholding production except in cases where the public interest would otherwise be damnified, for example… where the practice of keeping a class of document secret is necessary for the proper functioning of the public service.
The question I had to decide, therefore, was whether the document in question was one of a class which it was necessary for the proper functioning of the public service to keep secret. I had to consider this question in the light of the statement on the whole subject made by the Lord Chancellor in 1956 in another place when he said that
The proper way to strike a balance between the needs of litigants and those of Government administration is…to narrow the class as much as possible by excluding from it those categories of documents which appear to be particularly relevant to litigation and for which the highest degree of confidentiality is not required in the public interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 6th June, 1956; Vol. 197, c. 743.]
When I was asked to consider this case, it did not appear that the document fell easily into any of the classes in which privilege had been claimed in the past.
In these circumstances, I thought it right to take the advice of the Law Officers. The advice that I received was that I should not be justified in making a claim of Crown privilege. I accepted that advice and I have no doubt in my mind that I was right to accept it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be replying to the

debate. He will be able to deal with any legal aspects that arise more fully, but I think that it will be for the convenience of the House—as the Motion is on the Paper and as I took the decision in all good faith and after great consideration as will he seen from what I have already said—if I indicate briefly the main factors which influenced my decision.
The first, as I have said, is that this document did not fall clearly into one of the accepted classes. To have claimed privilege for it might, therefore, have involved an extension of an area which it has been our purpose to keep as narrow as possible. Many lawyers have objected to the extension of Crown privilege and have accused the Government of seeking to extend its scope, but so far as I know, this is the first time when objections have been taken to not extending the scope of Crown privilege.
The Times has been mentioned. I have no complaint about the manner in which The Times has reported or commented on this case. I am impressed by reading such statements and by the new desire to extend Crown privilege, but the Government should not fall in with any such suggestion, for the reasons I have given, namely that the executive should not step further into the realm of justice.
Having discussed the first reason, I give the second set of reasons. It seems to me impossible to say that the police record of the conversation in question was a confidential document in the proper sense of that expression. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Smethwick will listen to this part of my speech, because confidentiality was one of the criteria laid down by the Lord Chancellor and it has been accepted by all who have studied the exercise and use of Crown privilege.
Let us examine the circumstances in that light. The subscriber with whose agreement the record had been made had already informed the General Medical Council that a telephone conversation had taken place with the doctor concerned and that the police listened in. Thus, even if privilege had been claimed for the record, oral evidence of the conversation could have been given—and in fact it was given—by the subscriber. To have checked that would, indeed, have been an inroad into the liberty of the subject.
In considering this case, the House would do well to remember the words of Lord Simon in the classic case of Duncan v. Cammell Laird that:
It is not enough that the Minister …does not want to have the documents produced..
He went on to say:
… it would not be a good ground that, if they were produced, the consequences might involve the Department or the Government in Parliamentary discussion or in public criticism.
In order to avoid such discussion or criticism I might well have claimed privilege in this case. It might have been convenient to do so, but I have no doubt at all that against the background of the doctrine to which I have referred, and in view of the advice I received, and in view of the particular circumstances of this case, it would definitely have been wrong.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Is it not the case that Lord Simon's judgment, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, related to a case with which the Government themselves were involved? I recall that this question of Crown privilege came up and that it was naturally a matter of great concern to the general public, but here we are dealing with a case in which the Government themselves are not involved at all.

Mr. Butler: I have examined the judgments and statements of these authorities I have quoted, and they were dealing with the general principle. I think that anybody who made a claim of Crown privilege simply to keep out of public discussion and political difficulty would be wrong. I am very glad that I did not do it, to keep out of public discussion.
Future cases will have to be judged on their merits, bearing the public interest in mind. The General Medical Council, in commenting on the case with which we are concerned, has said that it seems most unlikely that the sequence of events will ever recur. I should think that very probable—that they will never recur.
I can give the House the assurance that I will ask the chief officers of police to ensure whenever they are asked by any disciplinary body to produce evidence on subpoena that they will let me know at once so that the fullest con-

sideration may be given to the question whether the public interest involves or justifies a claim of privilege.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: With the same result.

Mr. Butler: Not necessarily. It depends entirely on the case and the circumstances.
Turning now from this case I think the House will want to know what view the Government take about the general question of disclosure to outside bodies of information in the hands of the police. I recognise that there is much uneasiness about the possibility that material obtained for the purpose of prosecuting a criminal investigation should later be used for a quite different purpose in disciplinary proceedings before a domestic tribunal or a professional body. I undertook to consult the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers on this general question, and I have now had an opportunity of doing so; and this preliminary consultation has suggested two possible ways in which this question of disclosure might be approached if on mature consideration it is felt—and we shall listen to the debate—that the present position is unsatisfactory.
I will if I may deal with them separately. First, is there a case for curtailing the powers of these professional disciplinary bodies? It might, for example, be possible to provide by legislation that no disciplinary body statutory or otherwise should have power to secure the issue of a subpoena to the police, but I think we must consider very carefully the implications of such a proposal. I must remind the House that the purpose for which Parliament has conferred special powers on these bodies is to protect the public, and any such change would need very careful consideration and strong justification. In fact it was the Labour Government in 1950 which gave these powers to the General Medical Council. Any suggestion, therefore, of the kind I have made would require full consultation not only with my colleagues but with the various bodies whose powers would be affected.
I must say that the preliminary views which I have received from one of these bodies, the General Medical Council, indicate that the powers of subpoena are vital to the thorough investigation of cer-


tain cases and may be vital for the person appearing before the tribunal. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I think that we should deal with the important matter of principle involved and then turn our attention to the provisions of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Bill which was recently read a Second time.
Just before I come to that, a possible approach has occurred to me as a result of my consultations. I have wondered whether the powers of professional disciplinary bodies to secure the issue of subpoenas, while not being withdrawn, might be subject to some control. It might, for example, be possible to provide that such bodies should have power to obtain a subpoena only by leave of a judge or master of the High Court. The question of a claim of Crown Privilege could be considered at that stage, and even where it was decided not to make such a claim the court would in suitable cases consider whether, on grounds which are now well known at least since the case of Marks v. Beyfus in 1890 the police could properly refuse to disclose information on grounds of public policy. The effect of this proposal would be that the court—not the disciplinary body—would decide, if no claim of Crown Privilege were made, whether the information should be disclosed. Such an arrangement, which might require legislation, would perhaps go some way to meet the anxiety felt by the House.
However, this is a most complex problem which raises many difficult issues. It is especially necessary to keep in mind the position of the disciplinary tribunals which have been charged by Parliament with the duty of preserving the good name and integrity of their professions. I do not think we should lightly interfere with these bodies which have for many years performed with fairness and efficiency the duties entrusted to them. We must also keep in mind the interests of the man or woman with whose case the professional body is concerned. Further, even if it were agreed that the powers of these bodies were too wide and that some change is necessary, any particular solution is likely to raise many problems affecting many interests. 1 think we should have guidance before setting up new bodies under the Second Schedule to the new Bill relating to the professions supplementary to medicine.
I am persuaded, therefore, and I hope the House will agree, that there is need for a close and searching review of this question. The Government have therefore decided to set up a committee to examine this problem, and the terms of reference will be as follows:
To consider to what extent and subject to what conditions subpoenas (or in Scotland citations) should be issuable to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents before disciplinary tribunals; and in particular to consider whether subpoenas should be issuable to secure the production before such tribunals of evidence obtained by police officers in the course of criminal investigation; and to make recommendations.
I am glad to inform the House that Lord Simonds has agreed to act as chairman of the committee. There will be two other members, one from Scotland—with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—and one from England, whose names will be announced shortly. I am sure the House will welcome this authoritative inquiry into this complex and important problem.
Pending its report, we must remember that the Second Schedule to the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Bill deals with these matters and that we should not reach conclusions as to its contents till we know what the Committee recommends and what we finally decide.
I have endeavoured to cover the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. I repeat that this case is quite distinct from those raised by the Birkett Report. On the main issue to which this case calls attention and which causes anxiety we have decided to set up an inquiry. Pending the report of that inquiry and the Government's decision on it, I ask the House to have confidence in the Administration and to reject this Motion.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: It seems to me that during the larger part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman was really playing with words. He said that this was not a case of telephone tapping. It may not have been tapping in the strict technical sense, but it was a case of telephone interception. The precise method of interception makes no difference. It makes no difference whether


the police tap a line or whether they listen in on the house exchange, or whatever it may be. In fact, the conversation which one of the parties supposes to be a confidential conversation is being overheard. It is precisely with this wider issue of telephone eavesdropping and the consequences of such eavesdropping that the Birkett Committee was concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman announced the terms of reference of a new committee of inquiry to be presided over by Lord Simonds, but he must not imagine that that really disposes of the issues which are raised by this Motion. It does nothing of the kind and I shall seek to show that it does not touch the principal issues with which the House is concerned, or ought to be concerned, in this debate.
There is, I suppose, general agreement with the Birkett Committee that, however distasteful it may be, there must on occasion be justification for the interception of telephone conversations. It is needed for purposes of public security and for the detection of serious crime. What we are concerned about, however, is not so much the power under warrant to intercept and make a record of telephone conversations, but the question of the transcripts or records of those conversations being given in evidence.
There are three questions which require an answer. The first is whether we ought in any circumstances to prohibit the use in evidence of telephone intercepts. To that question the Birkett Committee gave an affrmative reply. The second question is, if there is a prohibition, how wide it should be and to what courts or tribunals it should apply. Thirdly, the question which arises directly out of the incident with which we are now concerned is whether it should be open to one party to the telephone conversation to waive the prohibition without the knowledge of the other party. I should like to consider the second question first, because on the second question the Committee of Privy Councillors was divided.
Lord Birkett and Lord Monckton recommended, in effect, that evidence of telephone intercepted conversations should be given only in courts of law. They said that it should not be available to private bodies and domestic tribunals.

On the other hand, my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) had one or two reservations and recommended, in effect, that evidence of such conversations should not be used by the Crown in any proceedings whatsoever. He did not say whether in his view it should be used by the defence and he did not deal with the case that might arise where evidence is given in civil proceedings to which the Crown is not a party. There was, however, this division of opinion in the Committee of Privy Councillors.
I have known both Lord Birkett and Lord Monckton for many years. I have the highest regard for both of them and for their judgment, but I cannot help feeling that on this issue my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick was more nearly right than they were.
I ask the House to consider—this has not been considered yet—the anomalies that are bound to arise if we distinguish in this matter between courts and domestic tribunals. Let me take the form of domestic tribunal with which I am most familiar. Let me take the case where a barrister is convicted of a crime and he is convicted, let it be supposed on what, for convenience, we might call telephone evidence, the evidence of an intercepted conversation. After his conviction the matter is bound to be referred to the benchers of his inn. They have to hold their own investigation. They have to decide whether the man should be disbarred.
Under the ruling as it now stands, however, whereby this evidence is available in a court but is not available to a domestic tribunal, we have the position that the benchers cannot admit in evidence the record of a telephone conversation even though they might be perfectly well aware of it. It might have been fully reported in the newspapers at the barrister's trial, but the benchers are precluded from looking at that evidence.
Let us take another case, that of a doctor who is called before the General Medical Council. The position there is slightly different because, unlike the benchers of an inn, the General Medical Council is precluded, so to speak, from going behind a conviction. It must accept that a conviction or the finding of a divorce court is correct as long as the


conviction or finding takes place in this country. If it has taken place in another country, the General Medical Council must itself go into the evidence and decide whether the conviction was right.
If, however, that happens and the doctor who is brought up is charged with a crime in a court and is acquitted, but the telephone evidence shows quite clearly that he has been guilty of the most serious professional misconduct, again we have a similar position. The General Medical Council, with the doctor before it, will be perfectly familiar with what has passed in the court and yet it will not be able to have regard to that evidence because it is denied it.
One could go on giving example after example of the various professional tribunals showing the anomalies that must arise if we draw this distinction and if we say that this form of evidence, which as a matter of law is perfectly admissible, is to be available in one kind of proceeding and not in another. That is why, speaking for myself, I do not believe that this differentiation can be justified. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick was right in his minority report.
The matter does not, of course, end there. We are not merely concerned, or we may not be concerned in the future, only with trials in courts of law and inquiries by professional tribunals. Those are not the only occasions when people are required to give evidence under oath. There may, for example, be inquiries—we have had two in the last year or eighteen months—under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1921. It might easily have happened in some of the inquiries which have taken place under that Act that evidence of an intercepted telephone conversation might have been tendered.
What would be the position then? Many of us have expressed misgivings from time to time about the procedure under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act. When people come before an inquiry of that kind and are accused of something they do not have the normal rights of accused persons. No charge is framed against them and if there is a finding, although it may be fatal to their whole careers, they have no right of appeal. We should add a good deal to the terrors of this form of procedure if,

as might well happen in an inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, this kind of evidence is to be admitted.
Therefore, my submission to the House is that difficult though this question may be—and we all appreciate the difficulties—it is really a question of all or nothing. Either we must make this evidence generally available in any lawful trial or inquiry, or else we must prohibit it altogether.
I appreciate that this is not easy to resolve and that there are great disadvantages whichever course one adopts. I appreciate entirely what the hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) said when he intervened, but there are, of course, times when one wants to call this form of evidence, particularly when dealing with dangerous criminals and especially with blackmailers. If we impose a general prohibition on this form of evidence in any court or any tribunal or inquiry, undoubtedly certain people will not be convicted who richly deserve what otherwise would happen to them.

Mr. Rawlinson: Would the hon. and learned Member accept that there are certain offences which could never be prosecuted, such as the passing of obscene messages over the telephone? There is often an interception and evidence is obtained in that way. Surely, the hon. and learned Member does not suggest that all this evidence must he excluded?

Mr. Foot: The recipient of the message is in a position to give evidence.
I have said that I appreciate that there are considerable difficulties whichever course is adopted. My submission is that we cannot escape from this dilemma. There are many anomalies which inevitably will be created if we say that this evidence is to be produced in one place and not in another. Therefore, we have to choose.
It seems to me that we ought to choose complete prohibition. We must have regard to the circumstances in which we live, and what is more important than almost anything else at the present time is to build and strengthen the safeguards which protect the ordinary individual citizen against the misuse of authority. That I believe is even more important than the detection of crime of the kind


which the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind.
I will come for a moment to the other question raised. It is suggested that we are dealing here with something different from the subject matter of the Birkett inquiry because one of the parties to the telephone conversation agreed with the police that they should listen in. It seems to me that if that doctrine is adopted it also involves us in considerable difficulties, because at what stage is the permission to be given? Is permission to be given simply for the police to listen in to the conversation or is permission to be given at a later stage for the transcript to be given in evidence? If the permission is given, can the permission ever be withdrawn?
I think we can all appreciate other difficulties which might arise if we can waive the prohibition. There are many cases in which the police would want to be able to call evidence of this kind. It would depend upon getting the consent of one of the parties to the conversation.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: May I ask one question? Would it make a difference to this part of the argument, which I am trying to follow, if the third party were not the police but some other person who had been asked to do it? Would the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument be the same then or different?

Mr. Foot: It would be the same because I am dealing here with the principle of interception. Of course in the majority of cases the people who will be concerned will be the police, and it will be very much in the interests of the police desiring to bring a successful prosecution to obtain the consent of one of the parties to an intercepted conversation. We all know the difficulties that arise sometimes over the taking of statements by the police. Those of us who frequent courts know very well how often the question arises as to whether a statement has been a voluntary one or whether it was obtained by some form of pressure. The same kind of consideration must inevitably arise if we say that the prohibition on giving this kind of evidence in the courts or before a tribunal can be waived by one of the parties. There again the question is

bound to arise as to whether the waiver was itself a voluntary one.

Mr. Charles Doughty: The hon. and learned Gentleman talks about consent to listening in to a conversation—using the neutral expression—and then talks about consent to giving evidence. Once the police have evidence by consent there is no question of giving or withholding it.

Mr. Foot: That is one of the matters on which I would like to have an answer. Is it said that there is no objection to the original interception or is it said that there is a waiver in respect of the giving of evidence? Let us suppose that there are two parties to a conversation. One agrees to the police listening in, and it is then proposed to give that conversation in evidence in some subsequent proceedings. Would it be open to the person giving the original permission to withdraw it? If we are saying that there must be a discretion to the individual to give the consent. it must also be open to that individual to withdraw the consent when it comes to using the evidence which has been so obtained
I am not suggesting that we are dealing with an easy question here. It is not a question which admits of any perfect answer, but certainly it is not sufficient to have the kind of enquiry which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested this evening. The Minister is merely concerned with the power of professional tribunals to issue subpoenas. Speaking for myself, I should be reluctant to cut down the powers they possess. After all, the professional tribunals are carrying out very necessary functions, functions which in many cases are imposed on them by statute, and it may be necessary for them to have the power to summon evidence and to call for documents. I think they should, but I submit that the serious issues raised by this Motion are not met by the very narrow type of enquiry which the right hon. Gentleman is now suggesting.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it is with great diffidence that I rise to speak on so important and serious a subject, and as I have no reasonable prospect of disguising my nervousness I feel it better


to confess it at the outset and seek the indulgence of the House.
I understand that it is traditional when one first addresses this House, which I am conscious is a great honour as well as a nerve-racking experience, to abstain from controversy and to begin by making reference to one's constituency. It is easy for me to combine the observation of both those traditions, for I have the honour to represent Southport, which is, of course, by common consent the finest coastal and residential resort throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
Turning to the subject of this debate, I have one point and one point only to make: and I have already suffered the mortification of hearing my one point made already by both right hon. Members in opening the debate. However, and since they have made it as but one part of much wider arguments, I venture to hope that the House may feel that it is a point of sufficient importance to merit further development as a single point in isolation.
In common with all lawyers, I have for many years taken a close interest in the subject of Crown privilege in relation to evidence in proceedings, with especial reference to the relationship between the claiming of Crown privilege on the one hand—which necessarily means that the subject and the tribunal are deprived of material evidence—and the liberty of the subject, on the other hand, which requires that on all matters which fall to be decided by a court or tribunal all material that is admissible as evidence should be before the tribunal.
I rise to speak because I seem to have discerned in discussions about this case, both within the precincts of this Palace and outside, a certain amount of misunderstanding as to that relationship between Crown privilege and the liberty of the subject, and I should like at least to endeavour to make a small contribution towards removing that misunderstanding. I propose, therefore, to direct my remarks particularly to the question of the making available to a court or tribunal of evidence of the nature of that which was, in fact, before the tribunal in the matter which gives rise to this discussion.
Of course, I appreciate fully that the first reaction of many people, and a very

natural and normal reaction, may well have been that the making available of such evidence is an infringement of the liberty of the subject. Indeed, there can be no other ground for complaint about making it available. I hope, however, to be able to demonstrate that that does not at all necessarily follow and that the true position may, indeed, be the reverse.
As I understand the facts—and I say that advisedly, because I accept that I may not have them as completely, or as completely accurately, as other speakers in this debate—the evidence in this case was quite clearly admissible and clearly most material and important. The tribunal, as has already been said—though perhaps I may be permitted to repeat at least this part of the facts in order to develop my own way of putting the point—had power to subpoena the witness to give evidence of what he had heard, and he was obliged to give that evidence unless both of two requirements were fulfilled. The first was that the Crown had the right to claim privilege or otherwise to prevent the witness from giving his oral evidence. The second was that the officer of the Crown delegated to exercise those privileges chose in his discretion to exercise them.
I venture to doubt whether in this particular case, though much more authoritative legal opinions than mine may be expressed about it, the Crown had, in fact, any right to claim privilege, because it would have been difficult to bring the case within the grounds upon which it is permissible for the Crown to claim privilege. If that be right, then the second question, the discretion as to whether that privilege should have been claimed or not, did not arise. if I am right on that proposition of law, then it would, of course, be necessary for the Crown to seek an extension of the right to claim privilege if it were to be able to prevent the giving of such evidence as this in the future.
But it is within my knowledge, and, I am sure, within the knowledge of all hon. Members, that for many years now there has been a cry, from lawyer and layman alike, that the power of the Crown to claim privilege should be reduced and that such powers as are left to the Crown to claim privilege should be used more and more sparingly.


The whole basis upon which that claim has been advanced has been that the exercise by the Crown of its right to claim privilege is a most glaring instance of infringement of the liberties of the subject. And it is a very real infringement of the liberties of the subject, and I am not entirely convinced that the subjects other than lawyer subjects fully appreciate what a grave infringement it is.
If the rule of law is to continue to prevail, it is absolutely essential that justice should be done and be seen to be done. It is a prerequisite of that, and one of the rules of natural justice, that a tribunal called upon to decide between subject and subject or subject and Crown should have before it all the material and evidence relevant to its decision, and, ex hypothesi, every time Crown privilege is claimed the tribunal is deprived of some material which is relevant to its decision and, therefore, hampered in doing justice.
In 1953, great concern was aroused by the case of Ellis and the Home Office, in which case it was said that the plaintiff was denied evidence which might have assisted his case because the Crown had claimed privilege and deprived the Court of that evidence. So strongly did the learned judge who tried the case feel about it that he said this:
I must express, as I have expressed during the hearing of the case, my uneasy feeling that justice may not have been done because the material before me was not complete, and something more than an uneasy feeling that, whether justice has been done or not, it will certainly not appear to have been done.
On appeal, Lord Justice Jenkins, as he then was, pointed out that, while it must always be reasonable to permit the Crown to claim privilege where the public interest demands it, if public interest is to be the test then it is in the public interest, and the public interest demands, that justice should both be done and be seen to be done.
It would seem that following the case of Ellis and the Home Office some very anxious thought was given to the matter, certainly at all levels in the legal world. As my right hon. Friend has said, on 6th June, 1956, the Lord Chancellor made a statement, which has been referred to, the effect of which was that the classes of evidence in respect of

which privilege could be claimed should be narrowed. Further, he announced immediate changes in the practice to be followed by Departments of State to secure an immediate move towards that end. The late Lord Jowitt, on behalf of the Opposition on that occasion, expressed agreement with those principles and objectives.
In my view, any attempt to extend the scope of Crown privilege for evidence, or to extend the use of the powers which exist, would be a most retrograde step and one which really would tend to prejudice the rights and liberties of the subject. To have taken any other course than was taken in this case would, I submit, have involved taking that step. It appears to me to be paradoxical to suggest that such a step should have been taken, or should on any future occasion be taken, on the alleged ground that it is for the protection of the liberties of the subject when, in fact, its tendency would be to operate in the other direction.
I should like to illustrate my point in a simpler way. It is important that the public at large should follow these matters, and they are not altogether easy to follow as matters of law; but a simple illustration might assist to that end. I apprehend that if the evidence in question had been favourable to the subject, and had the Crown been entitled to claim privilege, and had the Crown claimed privilege, there would have been an immediate and fierce outcry that this was yet another example of the infringement of the liberties of the subject.
I make no bones about it; in my view, such an outcry would have been wholly justified. However, I submit that it is illogical to suggest that because the evidence was unfavourable an outcry in the other direction is justified. The question whether evidence should or should not be made available cannot depend upon whether it is favourable or unfavourable to any party.
I apologise for taking the time of the House with what I appreciate is a rather dry, dusty, lawyer-like approach to one aspect of the problem, but I have done so for two especial reasons. My first reason is that I believe that a proper consideration of this problem necessarily involves consideration of technical legal points, and it is, therefore, necessary—not necessarily desirable—that anybody


who wishes to form and express a view about it should at least have those points present in his mind.
My second reason is that I hope that I may thereby make a small contribution—I hope in a non-controversial way, as has been my endeavour—towards preserving a sense of balance and proportion about this important aspect of the matter so that neither we nor the public may be stampeded by the very special facts of this particular case into advocating something which would be a reversal of what one thought was the universally accepted policy in relation to the scope of Crown privilege.
I sincerely hope that, in doing so, I have not trespassed too greatly upon the indulgence of the House. If, by misfortune, I have, my only excuse must be a sincere concern for the protection of the rights and liberties of the subject, coupled with the firmly held view that there is nothing more likely to be detrimental to the rights and liberties of the subject than an extension of the right to claim Crown privilege or an extension of the use of that right.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: This is the first time in fourteen years that I have had the privilege of congratulating a maiden speaker, due to the fact that I speak myself so rarely. It is a very rare privilege, in a highly controversial debate, to be able to congratulate the hen. Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) upon a very excellent speech and to be able to say that he spoke on a subject of which he obviously had very considerable knowledge and spoke with some authority, and to be able to add that, in general, I found myself in agreement with nearly everything he said. I congratulate him. He spoke briefly and ably. He represents a very delightful constituency. I used to know a girl—but I will not go into that now.
The only thing on which I disagreed with him was when he said that a maiden speech should be non-controversial. My own maiden speech was so controversial with my own party that I have never quite recovered, and although, since then, all of my hon. Friends agree with what I said, they thought at the time that it was presumptive for a young Member to say it. I heartily congratulate the hon. Member.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman was on very firm ground in saying that any extension of Crown privilege is bad. Ninety per cent. of lawyers are saying that there is far too much already. Those who believe in liberty want to see this used as little as possible and those of us who took part in trying to abolish the doctrine that the Crown can do no wrong really thought that we had done something, which, apparently, we failed to do.
I would say that the Home Secretary, taking the advice of the Attorney-General on that matter, cannot be seriously impugned for acting on the advice of his own Attorney-General, whom he was not responsible for appointing. I would have said, speaking in the abstract, that I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said, that, an balance, and on a fine balance, there was rather more argument for not putting it forward. I do not think that anyone would suggest that this is one of the graver issues.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who always makes a good defence for himself, impressed me immensely when he made his first explanation of this matter. As I had not then applied my mind to the subject, I thought that he was making an excellent case. He has made today, as he always does, an excellent case, but in the process he dropped one or two quite terrible bricks. The whole story has become worse. If one gets the permission of the person at one end of the telephone that is a rather different situation from tapping the two ends. What is the difference? The difference is a much graver risk of miscarriage of justice because the person at one end may be putting up a case, but if one is tapping a telephone wire with neither party knowing it is being done, there is a reasonable chance of getting a perfectly honest conversation.
The right hon. Gentleman went further and said that the police were investigating on behalf of the coroner. I understood him to say that, but I do not want to misrepresent anything that he said. If I were to deal with coroners, I should probably be outside the scope of this debate. However, I think that the day is rapidly coming when the House has to consider whether coroners serve any useful purpose or whether they are not, generally speaking, a definite burden on


the administration of justice. In many years of active practice I cannot recall any instance in which I think the holding of a formal inquest by a coroner served any useful purpose at all.
It has to be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman has now said that the police investigated on behalf of the coroner, which is not the normal function which the police have in these cases. But I agree that it is normal for two investigations to be proceeding at the same time and for the police to supply what evidence they get. There is no impropriety in that at all. I personally cannot see any impropriety on the part of the police in this matter. They were asked to make investigations. It is an astonishing thing to be told that in the first place the coroner decides that there is a case for investigating a murder or manslaughter when no one has been told a single fact that could possibly justify that suspicion.
Secondly, we were then told that no evidence having been produced in respect of the matter which was being investigated—indeed, further, that such evidence as was available was wholly in favour of the man in the issue being investigated—there comes a suggestion that there has been a breach of professionl etiquette in relation to an act of adultery. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the coroner communicated that information to the General Medical Council. If he did, it seems to me to be shocking conduct and to show personal venom. I do not know whether the coroner in the case was a medical man or a lawyer, but it is a rather appalling story.
The case against the right hon. Gentleman today, which has become worse, is this. I thought that the one thing of which I could accuse him, in the first instance, was that he was a little less than forthcoming on the question that the police initiated the matter. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that that fact came to the cognisance of the House only about three-quarters of the way through the long period of questioning which followed his statement. It was important that we should know it, because the right hon. Gentleman said in the Marrinan debate, "This has always been done by Post Office workers; it has really nothing to do with

the police." I do not suggest for a moment that he was trying to deceive, but I say that we were justified in formulating from that a rather wrong impression of the normal practice. He said that this was not a normal practice. I accept that qualification.
The right hon. Gentleman now comes to the House and says, having given an undertaking to the House that this thing shall stop, "I cannot do it because I have no authority over the provincial police". In the same speech in which he said that he had no power to do it because he had no authority over the provincial police, he says, "I am promising the House that I shall take steps like this in respect of statements taken by the provincial police". The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he is giving an undertaking to the House that in future these documents should normally be destroyed, how can he give that undertaking in respect of documents taken by the provincial police unless he hears that the documents exist and has the power to do it?
The right hon. Gentleman says that that is one of the matters which may be considered by the forthcoming Royal Commission. I do not want to weary the House by covering the whole ground which I would wish to cover. I think that it was the right hon. Gentleman who said—he may not have said it, but I agree with whoever did say it—that on the whole, looking back, it is a pity that we did not have a debate on the Report of the Birkett Committee at the time. There was a very good reason for this. It was a very strong Committee. It consisted of three distinguished men, all of them known for their liberal views, who had been members of three different parties, and it could not have had any better chairman than Lord Justice Birkett, known to be a great libertarian and, I think, a very great man, for a tribunal like this. Some alarming things were elicited in the course of that inquiry and the most interesting is to be found in a paragraph at the end of the Report where we are told that this procedure is rarely used in Scotland. It is astonishing that every time we come to consider Scottish legal procedure we seem to find that under every head it is better than ours.
I do not have the figures in my hand, but I think that in Scotland there were


about three cases in five years, whereas in England in the year I have in mind it was about 223 telephones and about 224 letters. Those figures are probably not cumulative and many of them are no doubt where there were two orders in one case, but it is still a considerable and alarming number.
In listening to the right hon. Gentleman I recalled that, of course, these practices were fairly widespread. That is why at tile first instance I was not prepared to take too censorious a view. When I was a lad I served my term as an office boy with an attorney's firm in which I was employed by the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy. It was normal in a suspected case of reckless expenditure or concealment of moneys, and so on, to have an order and to check a chap's correspondence, to steam it open and to stick it up again and to pass it back to him as quickly as one could so that he did not spot that his mail was being tampered with.
As far as I remember, no prosecution ever resulted. We were a jolly, happy office. So far as I know, no information of any importance ever came out and no prosecution ever followed. It was mostly a case of acting through venom, acting on anonymous information which it was thought should be investigated. That practice still goes on. Was that included in the Secretary of State's orders, or was it separated?
I have known 25 years or more of telephone tapping. I used to court the lady at the local post office at Measham whom I married, and I am very happy that I did. There used not to be anyone on night duty and in the period of my engagement the arrangement was that one switched on the bell at the telephone exchange and if anyone rang during the night someone had to go down and answer. In the early part of my engagement, it was naturally me, but after my marriage, of course, things were different.
If one is dealing with one call in a village which nearly always starts off with, "Was she up when you got home?" as the standard formula from one croney to another and concludes with the question "Shall we be seeing you tomorrow night?" there is nothing to do if the only bit of carpet is in front of the telephone than to stand there in one's bare feet until the conversation is over. I did a lot of telephone tapping in that way.
Some years later I had installed an intercommunicating telephone in my office. It was installed by a private firm which I think was called the Dictagraph Company, although I am not sure of the name and I do not want to slander the firm. The chap who installed it said, "Of course we can arrange a private telephone in any wall so that you can listen to the conversations of your staff". I said that I had never heard anything quite so appalling, but he said that many people did it.
I cannot think of anything more filthy than for a man to have a telephone attachment so that he can listen to the private conversations of his female staff in the place of their employment. The man told me that it was done and that seems to be a case for looking into all these matters with their serious implications.
I listened with great joy to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot), because this is a very important issue. I disagree profoundly with one of the reservations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) when he said that of course telephone tapping must he used for security and for finding out who was a Communist. How the deuce does one know who is a Communist? One of my right hon. Friends always used to think that I was. In point of fact, at one time the definition in the Parliamentary Labour Party was that a Communist was anyone who disagreed with foreign policy. Who would like to say that Mr. Khrushchev was a Communist? Joe Stalin, if he were still alive, would certainly say that he was not, and would probably have him shot for deviationism. Who defines it and who defines the difference between a Communist and a Socialist? Who knows what a Christadelphian is? What is the qualification of the police report on these matters?
The fact is that every system of espionage has always done more harm to the people who have used it than it has done to the people on whom it has been used. All the attempts at security in America did more damage to the United States in its international relations—more damage was done by McCarthy and by Mr. Parnell Thomas and his family staff—than was done to it even by Mr. Foster Dulles.
The activities of the charwoman Mme. Bastian in the waste paper basket of the German Embassy in Paris plunged France into political turmoil for a generation and partly led to the war of 1914. In that war, the early weakening of Austria after the first few days was due to the fact that the head of the Austrian espionage service and the head of the Russian secret service and the chap in charge in Italy had been swapping documents all the time and framing cases against their subordinates to prove their own honesty.
If one plays a dirty game, one imperils the foundations of one's justice and gains nothing by it. In America, this issue was raised in 1927 before the "Nine Old Men", and everyone knows how libertarian were the views of the Nine Old Men in the 1920s. But two of the three greatest American justices, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Brandeis, were among them, and they were among the dissenters about telephone tapping. Oliver Wendell Holmes said some words about it which are worth repeating. He said:
We have to choose and for my part I think it a less evil that some criminals should escape than that the Government should play an ignoble part. For those who agree with me no distinction can be made between the Government as prosecutors and the Government as judge. If the existing code does not permit District Attorneys to have a hand in such a dirty business, it does not permit a judge to allow such iniquities to succeed.
They said that the Fourth Amendment constitutionally prohibited the use of telephone tapping. They were a minority of four out of nine and later Congress passed a Bill to abolish telephone tapping.
The F.B.I., of course, never takes any notice of anything that Congress passes and everyone knows that telephone tapping still goes on. In fact, the F.B.I. contested the question of whether a member of the F.B.I. was a person within the meaning of the Act, but by a majority of seven to two the court found against the F.B.I. That is the expression of opinion of a great libertarian and that is my expression of opinion today.
I do not believe that these things can be done with honesty. I do not believe that they are needed. We have heard about the single case of a telephone call annoying a girl, but that is not a question

of tapping or of the girl being insulted and giving evidence at one end. What one has to do is to find the bloke at the other end. He is not found by telephone tapping, because he is nearly always speaking from a call box and under an assumed name. Blackmail has been mentioned, but blackmail can be stopped if the victim is given an absolute assurance that he will be completely protected, in which case it will be possible to get him to come forward and give evidence.
The basic principle here lies in the fact that much of this tapping goes on from home telephones and in a block of flats one may be listening to conversations of 15 families and in a home perhaps listening to a conversation of four, five, six or seven people, including six who are innocent of any association with what one is trying to investigate.
The moral foundation of this country is the home and that moral foundation rests on the security of the home. I dislike the expression, "British way of life," but it has some merit notwithstanding. The great value of the British way of life, outside the immediate neighbourhood of Park Lane, is the security, the decency, the integrity of the home. Those are things that are being disturbed by these things.
That is why when we prosecute eavesdroppers and Peeping Toms under a wretched Act of 1361. No one protests, because no one sympathises with such people. Perhaps it would be better if we provided more modern legislation. That is why all of us instinctively feel that it is so wrong that we should carry it to the extent of failing to do our duty and not reporting cases to the police. It is a curious thing that the uninstructed man in his own mind draws the same definition as the experts suggest should be drawn.
There are some cases of such violent crime that the home must be invaded. There are cases of such gravity that the fact that they occur within the sacred four walls cannot protect them. But in the main let us keep the home inviolate and keep that freedom inviolate. This practice means that the foundations of our morality and of personal character are not secure; let us wholly abolish this practice.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. John Hobson: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). I differ profoundly from him about whether the question that we are here investigating is the security of the home. Quite different issues are raised by this debate, very important issues for the liberty of the subject, and very important issues on our criminal procedure. I submit that what is in issue here is whether Her Majesty's mails and telephones should be maintained, and beyond that, whether the ordinary rules should not apply.
The real issue is what is meant by "interception." It is listening on any telephone, or is it only secret interference with the lines which are in the possession of and under the control of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General?
Surely the analogy that we ought to consider is that of the Post Office and the mails, because the telephone is a modern device, more immediate and more convenient, for conveying messages from A to B over an intervening space. We are considering today that question as it touches the liberty of the subject.
I stand as firmly as any other hon. Member in this House for the individual liberty of the subject. I remember with mixed feelings that in the last Session I did my best to try to prevent officials of local authorities searching private homes under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Bill without a search warrant. I received singularly little assistance from right hon. and hon. Members on the other side of the House.
That is perhaps by the way. We are here considering a means of communication provided by the State, and the security of that means of communication. I stand firmly on the principle of the Committee of Privy Councillors, and for the idea adumbrated by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, that there should not be interference with a means of communication which has been provided by the State. Mails ought not to be opened and telephones ought not to be interfered with for the purposes of the State while they are under the control of the Post Office, and, therefore, under the control of the State.
This case is completely different, and here I differ from the interpretation

which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) put on the word "intercept". As I understand the position, there were two internal extension telephones under the control of the householder. We all know that those of us who are in business, or in a profession, arrange for our clerks or colleagues to use an extension under our control. They frequently do so for the purpose of a triangular conversation. Occasionally it would not be proper or seemly for one's clerk to join in the conversation or, conversely, for one to join in a conversation which one's clerk is holding. That is perfectly proper. Indeed, in the home one's wife and children frequently use the telephone extension.
What difference is there between a person who has the right to use the two extensions allowing any third person, be he a police officer or anybody else, to use an extension, and the recipient of a letter, once it has been delivered by the servant of the Post Office and been opened by him, making that letter available as he pleases to whom he pleases? Anybody who writes a letter knows perfectly well that, although the instruction on the back of it is to burn it, it may not be burnt and may fall into other hands. Anyone who uses the telephone, particularly those in London who get so many crossed lines, knows that other people are likely to listen on the telephone. I imagine that all the residents in the village in which the hon. Member for Oldham, West lived were aware that their private lives were known in the local post office. Nobody assumes that a telephone is secure, least of all when there are so many extensions.
If a writer of a letter can have that letter used in evidence against him at the will of the recipient, on what principle can it be said that the recipient of a telephone call cannot get some third person, both to listen to that telephone conversation and give evidence about it? Indeed, it may lead to the ends of justice that that should be so, because nothing is easier than to deny what is said on the telephone. If two people have heard it the matter can be put beyond doubt, as it was in this case.
We have therefore to consider whether consentual use by the recipient is improper and ought to lead to the


exclusion of what might be most relevant and important evidence in courts of law or before tribunals.
Is it suggested by those who take a contrary view and support the Motion that the warrant should be necessary only for a police constable? What is to happen about a private detective? Is he to be allowed to listen on a private extension in the home or place of business only with the warrant of the Home Secretary? Or is it to be that persons other than chief constables are not to give evidence if they overhear a telephone conversation on an extension under private control?

Mr. C. Pannell: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman so far. What bothers me is the second point that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West made, whether, granted that this is allowable, the police have a right to use it. We boggle at the idea that such evidence, instigated by the police, should be handed over to a tribunal outside the courts of law. We are particularly bothered because it is proposed to extend that to another seven tribunals. I do not want to make a speech now. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to believe that what bothers us is not the case that he has posed—we agree with him on that—but the other point that was put forward by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hobson: The hon. Gentleman's intervention illustrates that everybody wobbles on the two points. They try to fire two barrels and when one misfires they say, "What about the other one?". I know the hon. Member for Leeds, West was trying to confine himself to one barrel, but a great deal of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick was devoted to the point to which I am addressing myself.
We must face the position that the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick and those who have tabled this Motion have made is that police constables should only be allowed to listen on the end of a private telephone with consent and if they have a warrant. The only result will be that a detective constable in Newcastle or any other place which is far away will get a private detective to do his work because it may be that he will not have time in which to get a warrant.
I cannot see that it leads to the ends of justice or liberty that police constables should have to get warrants to indulge in what every other citizen can do with the consent of the owner of the telephone, and what every other citizen can give evidence about if called upon to do so in a court of law or before a tribunal.
It was suggested, of course, that the possession of search warrants for private premises was the important analogy. I absolutely agree. It is, in fact, the complete analogy. But we all know from experience that the police very frequently—I should think in 90 per cent. of cases —go to the premises and ask the owner, "Can we have a look round?" The owner, if innocent, agrees, and on those premises frequently may be found very incriminating evidence against a third person, who has nothing whatever to do with the premises but has left his goods upon them.
There is nothing improper in that. Why should the police officer, in those circumstances, be allowed to go on the premises only if he has a warrant? It is absurd to say that one should get a warrant to do what the person who has control of the premises or the instrument is perfectly prepared to allow one to do.
The House may be interested to know of the case that followed that of Dr. Rose before the General Medical Council. It was the case of a doctor suspected of stealing the property of patients in the ward of a hospital. He was caught doing so by police officers, who hid on the premises behind a screen and observed him doing so. Is it suggested that they should not have been allowed to go on the premises without a warrant, or that the doctor should have had notice that they were observing him in the ward? In every circumstance, that becomes absurd. The real anxiety in this case, I quite agree, is whether such information, having been obtained, should be handed over to tribunals that are not courts of law, and I should like to say a word or two on that.
I thought that the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) was unanswerable. In substance, it was what I intended to say. These tribunals, and particularly the General Medical Council, are charged with a duty of making inquiries which is


of the greatest importance. The whole integrity, standing and respectability of the medical profession, and the trust of the public in it, depends upon the way in which the General Medical Council is able to carry out its duties.
Without those disciplinary powers, doctors would be doing dreadful things without any penalty at all, but we all know that, fortunately, we in this country are blessed with a great profession upon which the public as a whole can entirely rely, but they can do so because of the fact that there is a strong disciplinary body that can make due inquiry into how doctors are behaving. In making that inquiry, the members of the Disciplinary Committee of the Council are charged with discharging the duty of justice; of holding the scales between the propriety of the profession and the rights and liberties of the individual medical practitioner.
Justice does not consist in finding always for the prosecution or finding always for the defence. It consists in discovering the truth, and one cannot discover the truth except by due process of law—by having the evidence available. To tie the hands of the Council so that only part of the evidence was available might, in some cases, assist the practitioner, but equally—as was said in an excellent maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival)—it might be extremely injurious to the practitioner and prevent him from properly defending himself.
What is necessary for the members of the Disciplinary Committee to carry out their duties properly is to have the ability and the power to inquire into the matters of complaint, and unless they have the right of subpoena, unless they have the right of compelling witnesses to give what is admissible evidence in a court of law, they cannot do that duty, and they are then thrown back on methods that are far less satisfactory.
Most hon. Members will know that the power of subpoena was given by the Medical Act, 1950, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). It was then given to the General Medical Council for the first time without any opposition. No question was raised on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report or on

Third Reading about the conferment of that power on the Council. The reason why no question was raised was that before that Act was passed the Council had not been able to discharge its duty of discovering the truth.
In those days there were many serious cases, in which witnesses who could have conclusively proved matters of grave complaint against doctors—who should not have remained on the register—failed to turn up, and the whole proceedings then collapsed against the individual doctors. The only result was that the Council then had to resort to reading written statements, not subject to cross-examination. The witness may have put something on paper on which he was not prepared to stand on cross-examination. If he were not forced to attend, the Council could rely only on secondary and much worse evidence.
Other important safeguards, both as regards the General Medical Council and the disciplinary bodies for the professions supplementary to medicine are, first, that they all provide for a legal assessor to preside over or be present at the proceedings. The legal assessor to the General Medical Council not only performs that function. He is the deputy-chairman of county quarter sessions and very experienced in the law. As far as I know, none of his decisions or the advice he has given to the Council has been reversed on appeal. The second safeguard is that there is a right of appeal from the General Medical Council to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Those two safeguards put the General Medical Council, if not in the position of the High Court, at any rate in the position of quarter sessions and other superior courts. The issues are disentangled under the advice of an experienced lawyer, who also controls the admissibility of evidence and the procedure, and the facts are considered by ordinary, commonsense men. An appeal lies to a tribunal of the highest standing—the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There could be no better safeguards than those. Only when tribunals are constituted in that manner, with the safeguards that they are responsible and properly advised and appeals lie to the courts, is it safe to entrust such extensive powers to them. It is in this case right that such a tribunal should


have all the evidence and the ability to obtain it which an ordinary court of law would have. If it does not, less than justice would be done.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: What I find deeply disturbing is the Home Secretary's attitude to this whole matter. He is still of the opinion that he has done nothing wrong, that no one else has done anything wrong and that there is nothing to excuse or defend. Hon. Members opposite who have spoken also seem to think that nothing has happened to which exception can be taken and that the present situation is reasonably satisfactory and calls for no special action by the Government or anyone else.
That is profoundly disturbing. I am absolutely convinced that the public instinct is right and that the expressions of opinion by the Home Secretary and his hon. Friends are completely at variance with it. The right hon. Gentleman said that the kind of case which gave rise to the debate is not on all fours with the Marrinan case. Technically, he is right. It is very easy to argue legalistic distinctions between the Marrinan case, which gave rise to the Birkett Committee Report, and to the case of the doctor at Reading.
We were told after the Marrinan case and the Birkett Committee's Report that this kind of thing would never happen again. The Home Secretary repeated the same formula tonight. He said that the kind of case which occurred at Reading was never likely to recur. If that is so, why does he now suggest that another committee should be appointed to go into the further ramifications of the subject and make recommendations which the House will have an opportunity of considering in due course?
If the Home Secretary thinks that he is right, and nothing has happened to which real exception can be taken, it is not necessary to appoint a committee. We will let the General Medical Council and the other disciplinary bodies with statutory powers carry on in exactly the same way. We allow what we might call partial interception to go on as it goes on at the moment, and leave everything alone. I do not think that that will be tolerated by the public, because this is not fundamentally a purely legal

matter. Although he made a very ingenious defence tonight, I think that the Home Secretary knows that, morally, his position is weak and that what happened at Reading is completely in contradiction to the whole spirit of the Birkett Report.
That is our complaint against the Government. The fact that, even now, we have not received any assurance from the Home Secretary that the obnoxious performance at Reading is not likely to recur makes the whole position very unsatisfactory. I am prepared to concede that the Home Secretary acted in what he deemed to be the public interest by not claiming Crown privilege and by taking whatever other action he took. But, in doing so, I think it true to say that he disclosed a simple and easy way of evading the main suggestion or proposal in the Report of the Birkett Committee. The public is genuinely disturbed to learn that this kind of thing is possible, and is going on, and that it represents a state of affairs about which the Government are not really concerned.
There is one further consideration which I wish to put to the Home Secretary and to the Government. At present, there are about 1 million private telephone subscribers who share their telephone line, that is to say, 37 per cent. of all the private telephone subscribers in the country share a line, if we accept the argument of the Government as propounded by the Home Secretary, it means that it is possible for a police officer to go into any one of a million homes and to say, "We should like to listen to a conversation that the other subscriber with whom you share your line is having." Perhaps it is a conversation with a "stool pigeon", or a police informer, who, by arrangement with the police, is holding a conversation with that subscriber. That, surely, is a deplorable state of affairs.
It may be necessary to have this power for purposes of counter-espionage or something like that, but the point I am trying to make is that if we concede the argument advanced by the Home Secretary, it is possible for the police to go into any one of a million homes and, by arrangement with one private telephone subscriber, listen to the conversation of another person with whom the telephone line is shared.
For the sake of argument I am prepared to concede the right of the police to listen to telephone conversations in cases where serious crime is involved, and without going into too many definitions of what the expression "serious crime" may mean. But when the police hand over to other professional bodies like the General Medical Council, the General Dental Council, the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, or the Bar Council, records which have been made by whatever method—telephone tapping interception, listening in, or any other arrangement—we are faced with an intolerable situation. In effect, it means that the police are supplying private societies with information about the conduct of suspected members of those organisations, and it is not for that kind of thing that we pay the police.
Because of that, the public generally rejects the kind of attitude displayed by the Home Secretary and by his hon. Friends. I do not think that such an attitude is in accordance with what we might like to call a moral outlook on life. I know that it may be considered ridiculous to introduce moral considerations into a purely legal argument. A number of very interesting legal arguments have been adduced by members of the Bar, with whom I have no quarrel. I am myself a member of the Bar, although I do not earn a living from it. The point I wish to stress is that we are not engaged on a purely legalistic argument. We feel that we are entitled to ask for cast-iron assurances that this kind of thing will not be allowed to continue and that information obtained in this way will not be passed to a professional tribunal which is not a court of law.
The hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) referred to the procedures followed by the General Medical Council. He omitted to point out that that body is not bound by the same rules of evidence as the High Court is, and, although there may he a legal assessor on that body, the rigid practice of the High Court as to the rules of evidence is not followed to the letter by these private tribunals.

Mr. Hobson: There is a rule of evidence which the General Medical Council has to follow, under which it

must obey the ordinary rules of evidence such as are followed in an English criminal trial, unless the G.M.C. has consulted a legal assessor who advises that body that its duty to inquire makes it necessary that it should admit other evidence, on such occasions, for instance, as when dealing with overseas cases when it is necessary to proceed on something which is less than the best evidence. The usual practice of the General Medical Council is to follow the usual rules of evidence as are followed in the English criminal courts.

Mr. Rawlinson: The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) may know that that was laid down in a Statutory Instrument which was laid before Parliament only last year.

Mr. Lipton: All kinds of things are laid down, but they are not always followed in practice. I am asserting that if I have to be tried anywhere I would rather be tried in a court of law than by any professional tribunal in the land.
I do not want to be led away into another argument, because I promised to speak briefly. We must insist that the police must not be allowed to hand over to any professional tribunal for any other purposes evidence which they have collected in the course of their criminal investigations. If the evidence that they have collected in the course of their criminal investigations leads to a criminal charge being preferred, that is what the police are for and that is why they have collected the evidence; but if that evidence does not justify the institution of criminal proceedings, that should be an end of the matter so far as the existence and use of the evidence collected by the police is concerned.
I hope that the House will register in no uncertain manner its disquiet over what has happened. I do not believe that the proposals that have been put forward by the Home Secretary to appoint another committee to make further recommendations really meets the situation, because even after that committee has reported and after the Government may have said, "We accept the recommendations", it is still possible for another borderline case to arise and for the Government to say, "It is never likely to occur again." We must establish the principle once for all so that there can be no dubiety about it.
It is no use making reports or accepting recommendations or giving assurances. We have to embody what we believe to be right in the form of legislation, so that there can be no argument, doubt or suspicion or a repetition of the kind of case which has given rise to this debate.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) said that he was a member of the Bar, although no longer earning his living at the Bar. I should have thought that he would have been reluctant to try to establish what has already, I think, been exploded beyond all doubt, and that is that there is any real connection between this kind of interception and the telephone tapping of which we generally speak. Therefore, if he sets himself up as the arbiter of the instinct of the nation, if that be its instinct, which I myself do not accept, he should remember that the full and proper facts have not until now been disclosed to enable persons to judge.
I share with, I am sure, every right hon. and hon. Member of the House the general repugnance felt at the thought of listening posts being set up and people being able to intercept conversations through the public telephone system between one person and another. But, of course, I accept, as the Privy Councillors accepted, that it is occasionally essential for the security of the State that there should be interception. The security of the State can be endangered not only by outside enemies or internal political enemies but, of course, by criminals. Therefore, although I admire the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) in his reservation to the Birkett Report, I do not believe that they accord with reality. As he said, they would give comfort to some criminals. Modern criminals and modern methods of crime are well organised and highly skilful. I believe that the deterrent effect of knowing that the Secretary of State can issue a warrant and that there can be interception serves a considerable purpose in preventing what may be the organisation of crime on a very serious scale.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington

(Mr. Hobson) made quite clear, this matter really turns on the second point, namely, whether information should be given to private tribunals. In 1950, 1956 and in 1958 Parliament dealt with the powers of the General Medical Council. For instance, in 1958, the General Medical Council Disciplinary Committee (Procedure) Rules Order in Council was laid before the House. It was not prayed against. Parliament has decided to give certain tribunals, apart from courts of law, statutory powers because it is thought to be in the public interest that these bodies should have such powers in order to protect the public.
The public is protected, because a profession, whichever it may be, on which people very much depend itself ensures that it sternly looks after the standards of skill and behaviour of its members. When I heard my right hon. Friend say that he intended to set up a further committee, I hoped that that committee will hear evidence and, in its conclusions, will reject any suggestion for the removal of the subpoena power from the professional bodies, not only the General Medical Council, but the Law Society, the disciplinary bodies of the dentists, the opticians, the midwives, the veterinary surgeons, and the architects. We have given them that power. It has not just come into being. It has been given to them by the House of Commons. Discipline in those bodies is in the public interest, for they are specialists, and on their skill and integrity many depend.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: Where does my hon. and learned Friend draw the line? Does he envisage every professional body having a private court? Is it not conceivable that the House may have made a mistake?

Mr. Rawlinson: Of course, as my hon. Friend knows, this House is always capable of making a mistake. If he asks me about drawing a line, I say that any profession on the members of which the public depends for skill and integrity as affecting the personal lives or livelihoods of people should be given power so to control its members, that a member's name can be erased from the register if his conduct demands it, if his skill is not what it should be, or if he suffers from the habitual taking of drink or drugs so that other people's health or


lives are in jeopardy as a result of his bad professional attention or lack of skill.
With regard to the General Medical Council, I think that it is important to realise that during the last sixty years or so there have been only 290 erasures, only one quarter of which were due to improper or indecent conduct, such as adultery. The remainder were due to members of the profession procuring or attempting to procure miscarriages, offences of fraud and forgery, canvassing and offences relating to drink and drugs. It is undoubtedly to the benefit of the public that the profession should be able to remove persons not able to give the medical attention that they ought to give. My hon. and learned Friend referred to the matter of appeal to the Judicial Committee. Since 1950, there have been only three such appeals and none has been successful.
With regard to the case from which this debate arises, some of the evidence which was elicited, both at the inquest and at the disciplinary inquiry, has not been correctly represented by some hon. Members. In fact, there was, as some hon. Members may know, a letter from the deputy coroner so that inquiries were made about the prescription given by the doctor to the deceased person, statements of the doctor to the police, and letters which were left to the coroner but which were excluded from the consideration of the Committee as not being in accordance with the very strict rules of evidence, were excluded. That was in favour of and to protect the practitioner against the complainant.
With regard to Crown privilege which arose when the matter came before the Home Secretary, I agree completely with What my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) said in his excellent maiden speech. Crown privilege may be a technical subject, but it is of vital importance to all of us, whether we be lawyer or layman. Here was legally admissible evidence corroborating that of a member of the public making a grave complaint against a practitioner. In my view, if the Home Secretary had ruled so as to prevent that evidence being handed over because of Crown privilege, that would have been a gross extension of Crown privilege, which is the very last thing that anyone wishes to see.
Having regard to the terms of the Motion, I must say that although I much admire the sentiments of the right hon. Member for Smethwick it is totally misconceived and certainly should be rejected by the House.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I follow the hon. and learned Members for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) and Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) and the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) in their condemnation of what is commonly known as telephone tapping. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) go rather further than most hon. Members have in the debate, and even further than the minority Report of the findings of the Committee of Privy Councillors. The least I could do is to go as far as the minority Report. The hon. Member was right to draw attention to the views of very eminent American judges. He referred, I think, to two of them. Mr. Justice Frankfurter is also on record as being wholly opposed to telephone tapping. These are not men lacking in experience and well versed in the British traditions of law. However, I do not think that this rather wide subject is the main matter under debate.
I share the view that there is a distinction between what happened in this case and what happened in the Marrinan case. There is some distinction between telephone tapping as it was in the Marrinan case and as it is in this case, but as the debate continued I have become a little confused as to exactly what it is. The hon. Member for Oldham, West made a fair case for saying that it is worse if the victim, so to speak, who is to ask certain specified questions in the hope of getting certain answers, is put on one end of the telephone. The hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington drew attention to the well-known fact that nothing on a telephone is entirely private, and that those who use the telephone must possibly expect crossed wires or people to be listening in. This argument, however, affects telephone tapping, strictly so-called, just as much as it affects a person who is listening on an extension. I am still puzzled about exactly where the distinction lies, although I still feel that there is a distinction. When the Home Secretary was speaking,


I thought that it might lie in the fact that it was admissible for a person being blackmailed or for a girl against whom obscene language was used to ask the police to listen to what was happening. As opposed to this, when the Home Secretary mentioned the case of the man behind the arras as a parallel case, one recalled that the most celebrated man behind the arras— Polonius—came to a sticky end and that when that happens the whole of the audience approves.
On the whole, the difficulty about making the distinction, the fact that even if it is a victim of a possible crime who invites the police to listen in, seems to me to confuse the question —and I am opposed to interception in both forms. Whether there is a distinction or not, the main topic of the debate has turned on what use it is proper to make of the information so obtained.
These are two points that I should like to make. First, the Home Secretary, on 3rd December, and hon. Members, today, have said that it is highly undesirable to extend the system of Crown privilege. I agree. On 3rd December, the Home Secretary said that it was undesirable in the name of liberty, and this, of course, is the fundamental reason for not extending Crown privilege. Liberty, however, is not a disembodied spirit which is detached from live people. In this case, one has to consider whose liberty is at stake. So far, this does not seem to have been done. The only person whose liberty was directly at issue in the present case appears to have been the doctor. It was his liberty that was threatened. It is a well-known feature of law that often when it is a question of the defence as against the prosecution the scales are weighted rather in favour of the defence. This point has not been given sufficient attention.
The second question is whether it is proper to give evidence to semi-judicial or quasi-judicial bodies. The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) made a convincing case for saying that, if we allow the evidence to be given in courts of law, it is difficult to draw the line and say that it should not be given to quasi-judicial bodies. But it is one thing to collect evidence of a possible crime and, if the man is convicted of

that crime, to pass on the evidence to the quasi-judicial body. It is quite another thing to say that if, in the course of collecting evidence of a possible crime, one comes across evidence about other improprieties, surely they should be sent to the body in question. Surely it is possible to draw a distinction and say that this latter evidence should not be passed on.
I feel quite certain, however, that if it is agreed that there are circumstances in which telephone tapping in the strict sense, or telephone listening in the sense in which we are discussing it today, is justified, if these bodies have the right to subpoena witnesses it cannot be said that they must not subpoena the witnesses who have collected the evidence in this way. It must be either all or none. I am glad to think that there are comparatively few bodies which have this power and that they are closely circumscribed. I am indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) for saying that there are only seven such bodies, but I share very much the doubts of the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson). The hon. and learned Member for Epsom went very far when he appeared to contemplate a considerable extension of this principle, because there are a great many bodies who are concerned with the sort of things that the hon. and learned Member mentioned.

Mr. Rawlinson: I mentioned only those who already have these powers. I appreciate that it is suggested that other bodies may shortly have these powers and that there may be a good case for having only one disciplinary body to control all these.

Mr. Grimond: If there were only one body to deal with all the professions covered by the new Bill, that would be a little more reassuring.
What this debate has to resolve is this. I am certain that, after the Report of the Committee of Privy Councillors and the Government's response to it, the impression of those who have followed the matter has been twofold: first, that there was to be no telephone interception without a warrant; and, secondly, that the results so obtained were not to be handed over to quasi-judicial bodies.
As it has turned out, we were mistaken. The Home Secretary has assured us that


it is possible for the provincial police, at any rate, to carry on interception and that he cannot stop it; and, furthermore, that it is possible for these quasi-judicial bodies to subpoena witnesses and for reasons which he has explained, that the Home Secretary would, at any rate, often be in a position in which he would not exercise Crown privilege. The public may be wrong about this, but I am quite certain that this is not how they understood the matter had been left after the report of the Privy Councillors. The present position should be cleared up.
I reiterate that this interception, to use a neutral word, of letters and telephone conversations is odious and that it is not and never has been a justification in this country of odious practices that they were necessary or convenient for the detection of crime. We have very stringent rules about the interrogation of people by the police, and we long ago gave up torture, which may be a very good way of extracting information about crime.
The hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington also told us, I think with some conviction, that we could not distinguish between what a policeman does on a telephone and what an ordinary person may do, if an ordinary person should be on an extension and able to overhear a conversation. Surely, however, there is a distinction, and this distinction between the police and other citizens is constantly emphasised.
I feel that we have got a certain way by the promise of the Home Secretary to set up an inquiry into the question whether quasi-judicial bodies of various sorts should have the right to subpoena. I should like him to go further. I should like him to assure us that in the inquiry, which was announced earlier, about the police, the question of their powers and their position in relation to the Home Secretary's warrant will be examined.
Further, I think that the second inquiry, to deal with subpoena, might well have its terms of reference widened. I think that it might be asked to consider, also, some of the questions which were referred to the Privy Councillors—the question of making evidence available at all to outside bodies, and on what conditions it should be made available, the question of Crown privilege in relation to this whole matter, which is a

matter which the Home Secretary, also on 3rd December, said he would examine, and also the use of warrants and who should grant them.
It has been suggested—I do not know whether or not it is a feasible suggestion—that so much power should not be left in the hands of the Home Secretary and that some of these powers might be exercised, say, by a judge. I dare say it would be inconvenient, but, as I said, in the detection of crime in this country we do not always accept that the most convenient thing must be done.
I think it reasonable to ask that these inquiries should be widened in the ways I have suggested, and I certainly think that before we leave this subject the public at large should be very much more clearly informed on what the position exactly now is, because while I do not believe that people appreciate the limitation on the Home Secretary's powers to control the police or to control this whole process of tapping, I do believe that there is a very widespread feeling in this country against the whole practice of telephone interception.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I am rather surprised that there has not been a wider welcome on either side of the House to the proposal put forward by the Home Secretary that he was to inquire into the matter which has aroused the feelings of most hon. Members who have spoken and about which they have shown themselves to be particularly perplexed and anxious. I, at any rate, welcome the prospect of this inquiry. It may not be welcomed outside this House. I think that it is quite possible that amongst a strong body of feeling which is entitled to respect it may not be, and I think it is important to consider why this may be so and to say a word about it.
In effect, I think that an inquiry is needed to supplement the Report of the Privy Councillors last October. Some of the general principles now concerning us were admirably dealt with in that Report, but it is incomplete. The principal conclusion in paragraph 101 reads:
We therefore conclude by recommending that there should be no disclosure of information obtained on public grounds by the exercise of this great power, to private individuals or private bodies or domestic tribunals of any kind whatsoever.


It never seemed to me that the matter could be allowed to rest there, because while it is true that the issue of a warrant to intercept communications is an exercise of very great power it is not the only exercise of great power and of unpleasant power which must be used in this country for the prevention and detection of serious crime and the preservation of the security of the State.
The most difficult thing we have to argue is not whether the interception of communications is a legitimate method in combating crime and in pursuing the criminal, but how far many of these strong powers, many of which have not been touched upon, may be used outside the courts not for dealing with crime, but for regulating the conduct of professional bodies. I have never thought it logical to isolate the interception of communications and put it in a class apart. Such methods really involve no separate principle. But the use of police methods and the use of police evidence for purposes other than the original purpose for which these great powers are granted seems to me to involve a very great grinciple indeed.
It is not only illogical to isolate the interception of communications, but it places the Home Secretary in very great difficulty. The Report of the Privy Councillors, left him to invoke Crown privilege, and in this case the Home Secretary has incurred censure for doing so. The case has not been mentioned, but I recall a decade ago the case involving farmer Odlum, where the Minister concerned incurred severe censure, many thought rightly, for invoking Crown privilege. Moreover, it has been lately shown that Parliament, and not the Home Secretary, has been guilty of a little inconsistency in this matter.
We have all accepted paragraph 101 of the Privy Councillors' Report, but we are at present passing a Measure granting powers to other professional bodies which will make the occasion of the Home Secretary having to invoke Crown privilege more frequent. This Crown privilege should be used most sparingly, as has been said in a most persuasive speech from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. There is, however, very strong feeling among professional bodies on this point and that will become

apparent when the inquiry which has been promised tonight gets to work. It is well to recognise this and seek to understand it.
I find disturbing the conviction of people of high standing, professional bodies and men, that occasions will arise when, for the proper administration of justice—and that is how they see it—it will be necessary and legitimate to have access to evidence obtained for the prevention of detection of serious crime. There is a gulf here between what Parliament may want and professional bodies may want, and it is a matter on which convictions are held with absolute sincerity.
My own feeling is that evidence obtained by police for criminal proceedings ought not to be used—one cannot say never must be used—for the judgment of morals and professional conduct outside the courts of justice. Not merely interception, but many other methods, have often to be employed within the law which are extremely powerful and extremely unpleasant.
Let me give an example, from a recent occurrence, of what I mean. The Privy Councillors' Report indicated that the powers of interception of the Customs and Excise were altogether exceptional. That is not altogether true. Earlier this year the wife of a constituent, a highly distinguished professional man, posted a letter to her son in France. She was satisfied by the bank that extra money could be sent. She sent £1, but, wrongly, omitted to get special permission. That letter was opened in the course of business by the Customs and Excise at the Post Office. The letter and the £1 were returned to the sender, and in a later explanation it was observed:
The letter packet… was, in strictness, legally liable to forfeiture, but under an administrative concession, it was decided to allow it to be restored to you with the explanation of the correct procedure to be followed when remitting money abroad.
This, both the chairman of the board and the Postmaster-General, indicated to me that they are authorised to do by the Foreign Postal Packets (Customs) Warrant, 1948. What is interesting in this context is what prompted the opening of the letter, because I have reason to believe that my constituent is not a notorious smuggler, nor would he be suspect of serious offences against cur-


rency regulations, which, the Report led us to believe, were the circumstances in which these powers are used.
I mention this only to indicate that probably a great deal more of this kind of thing goes on within the law than most of us suspect. These powers are strictly measured, as they should be, against the absolute needs of law and order. That is their yardstick and, as I see it, that is their justification. Without that justification such powers should not exist. Parliament would never have granted such powers and that is a balance which society contrived for itself. But it is not a balance which ought to be used to tip the scales elsewhere, and that is what I most earnestly feel about this extrajudicial procedure.
It is wholly natural that bodies of highly reputable professional men should consider it essential that they should be assisted in the protection of their profession and the protection of the public and indeed, as was said earlier, the protection even of the defendant. I concede to my hon. and learned Friends that it may even be in the interests of the defendant that full evidence should be brought forward. It is that which makes it seem so compelling that all the evidence should be made available, and that to withhold it, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) suggested, would be to defeat the discovery of truth.
It is so compelling that it is hard to resist, yet I confess that I resist it. I think that we should resist it, because the judgment of crime and the judgment of sin, even professional sin, is not quite the same thing. That is what makes law-making in this place so difficult. It may seem absurd to some hon. Members that a doctor drunk in charge has committed a crime, but that a doctor who has committed adultery with a patient has not done so. Of course, some offences, such as abortion, are covered by both, but where there is not a crime the machinery of the State —the powerful and terrible machine—should not be applied. There is always a risk that we shall come to the point when someone will say that the police cannot secure a conviction, but that, on their evidence, we can root someone out of his profession. I cannot accept that.
The problem of separating crime and sin is one of the oldest we are confronted with. It bedevilled our discussion of the Wolfenden Report. It was brilliantly discussed this year by Sir Patrick Devlin, in his Maccabean Lecture in Jurisprudence, entitled "The Enforcement of Morals". The point he made was that there is no firm principle to guide us in the line between crime and sin. It is because there is no firm principle, but only instinct to guide us, that we should proceed so carefully. That is why I welcome the inquiry.
Somebody may ask: where should the line be drawn? I would reply that it is extremely difficult to find the line and that we shall need an inquiry to find it. The attempt must be made to find a line on what public bodies outside the courts should have access to and which public bodies should have such access given to them. If we are to inquire into that, as we have heard tonight, a distinct step forward will be made.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I think the whole House would agree that we have had a very fruitful and instructive debate, as we generally do in this House when high matters touching the liberty of the subject are involved.
I think that, if for no other reason, the Motion of censure tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends has justified itself by the announcement which the Home Secretary made towards the end of his speech, and which I welcome in common with the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and others. As a result of this debate an inquiry is to be held under the distinguished chairmanship of Lord Simonds into the whole of the circumstances in which communications of this kind can be disclosed to professional or other domestic tribunals. But that does not in any way dispose of the Motion of censure. We must still press it home to a Division because, although the Home Secretary has made an attempt to make amends and put matters right for the future, it is based on the right hon. Gentleman's conduct in the past.
I observe that this is not the first time this Session—it is, indeed, the second time within a month—that as a result of a Motion of censure which we have had to table on the conduct of the Home Secretary the right hon. Gentleman has


been driven to the appointment of either a Royal Commission or a Committee of Inquiry to investigate matters which have caused very considerable public disturbance. It was less than a month ago, in a debate in this House on the case of Garrett and Eastman, that we had to attack the action of the Home Secretary. As a result of that debate, we obtained the promise of an inquiry and the Prime Minister this afternoon announced that a Royal Commission will be appointed.
Therefore, while we welcome the announcement that the matters which have so greatly disturbed public opinion are to be investigated, I must invite the House to return to the basis of the Motion of censure. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) a few moments ago expressed the matter very succinctly when he said that everybody assumed that as a result of the Birkett Report there would be, first, no telephone interception by the police without warrant, and, secondly, no disclosure of the results of any such interception to any private body or domestic tribunal.
The Home Secretary has attempted in his defence this afternoon to argue, first, that the case of Dr. Fox is not on all fours with the Marrinan case which the Birkett Committee was investigating and, secondly, that he was justified in withholding the claim to Crown privilege and, therefore, in disclosing the documents to the General Medical Council.
I wish to say a word or two about both those aspects of the Motion. I admit, of course—it must be evident—that the precise facts of this case are not on all fours with those of the Marrinan case which was the precise subject of inquiry by the Birkett Committee, but nobody reading the Report of the Birkett Committee can doubt that the Committee was dealing with the whole category of cases of telephone interception by the police. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) has pointed out, we are concerned here with the liberty of the subject, and the person aggrieved is just as much aggrieved if interception takes place with the consent of one party to the investigation as if it takes place in the ignorance of both parties. In other words, from the point of view of public disquiet, eavesdropping of this kind is just as odious and repug-

nant to public opinion as the kind of interception that took place in the Marrinan case.
The Times, in its leading article on 7th December, expressed very well the public feeling on this subject, and it was typical of other organs of the Press. The Times—I do not think its language was too strong—said:
Eavesdropping is distasteful and more is needed than emerged on Wednesday to satisfy people that this commonplace device of police states will be used in our free society only for compelling reasons affecting the course of justice at its gravest and, then, with the prior consent of high authority.
The Birkett Committee, in commenting on the Marrinan case, said in paragraph 92:
It has been the settled policy of the Home Office that, save in the most exceptional cases, information obtained by the interception of communications should be used only for the purposes of detection, and not as evidence in a Court or in any other Inquiry.
We all concede that the police must have these wide powers for certain limited purposes, namely, for the security of the realm, for dealing with espionage and for the protection and prevention of crime, but the House is insistent that these powers shall be carefully regulated and subject to proper safeguards in the interest of the liberty of the subject. That is why we all thought they would be used only on the Home Secretary's written warrant.
I appreciate that we cannot criticise the Home Secretary in this case for having issued his warrant because he was not asked for his warrant. I think, however, that we should like to know whether, had he been asked for his warrant, he would have issued one. It is also pertinent to point out that the Home Secretary said that as a result of his inquiries, leaving aside the kind of telephone tapping that occurred in the Marrinan case, he was satisfied that there had been no widespread use of listening in. If that is the case, administratively it would not be very difficult to seek a warrant from the Home Secretary in the rare cases in which the police have to resort to this device.
On the second aspect of this motion of censure, which in some ways is the more serious aspect, the Home Secretary was less than frank with the House. We were all under the impression that the Birkett Committee had emphatically


recommended that there should be no disclosure of information obtained on public grounds by the exercise of telephone interception to any private individual, private body, or domestic tribunal of any kind.
As my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, it is unfortunate that we did not have a debate in the House on the recommendations of the Birkett Committee, because had there been such an opportunity we should have been able to resolve a good many of the new questions which have been thrown up by this case before the General Medical Council and which have been ventilated this afternoon.
I must remind the House that, although it did not debate the recommendations of the Birkett Committee, the Prime Minister on 31st October, 1957, in answer to a Question, said:
The Government accept all the Committee's recommendations and arrangements are being made to give effect to those of them which call for a change in procedure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 31st October, 1957; Vol. 575, c. 398.]
I hope we shall hear precisely what steps were taken by the Prime Minister and what instructions were given either by him or by the Home Secretary as a result of that undertaking given in the House.
It seems to me that if proper instructions had been given in accordance with the Prime Minister's promise and assurance to the House this disclosure by the Home Secretary would not have taken place. The Home Secretary says that this has nothing to do with it, but the disclosure was a disclosure by the Home Secretary because of the Home Secretary's personal failure on two grounds. First, he failed to ensure destruction of the record. He says that he had never heard about it. Then the Home Secretary is blaming the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister promised the House that he would ensure that effect was given to the recommendations of the Birkett Committee. One of the statements made by the Birkett Committee was that information so obtained goes only to the police and until the recent case affecting Marrinan it had never been disclosed to any outside person and had always been destroyed. Therefore, I ask why the record was not destroyed in this case.
Secondly, the Home Secretary must face up to his failure to rely on Crown

privilege. We listened to a very interesting maiden speech by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), on which I congratulate him, although I do not agree with what he said. As I understood it, he went so far as to say that there should be a much greater inroad into claims for Crown privilege than there was at the moment.
It is our indictment of the Home Secretary that he failed to use the one and only method by which he could have avoided disclosing this record of an intercepted telephone conversation, namely, by relying on Crown privilege. He told us on 3rd December that he did not take that responsibility himself but consulted the Law Officers of the Crown. We know quite well from other contexts the Home Secretary's opinion of some of his colleagues, but he cannot shuffle out of his responsibilities in that way, and I will explain why.
The Home Secretary gave the game away when in column 1383 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 3rd December he tried to defend himself by saying that this particular case was not covered by the dictum of the Lord Chancellor about claiming privilege in 1955—that should be 1956. According to HANSARD, it is 1955, but in actual fact it is 1956; the actual date was 6th June, 1956. The Home Secretary referred both to the previous dictum of Lord Simon and the subsequent dictum of the present Lord Chancellor. His whole defence was that, because of those dicta, he did not feel justified in claiming Crown privilege.
I invite the House to realise that those statements by Lord Simon and the present Lord Chancellor in June, 1956, are not the last word on the subject of Crown privilege. Both those statements were made before the Birkett Committee reported and before the Marrinan case arose and before this case arose. In other words, what the Lord Chancellor was considering in 1956 and considering as the result of a great deal of pressure from my hon. and right hon. Friends against it was any extension of Crown privilege, particularly in cases affecting disputes between a private litigant and the Crown. Nothing that was said on those occasions had any relation to the claim for Crown privilege before a domestic tribunal.

Mr. Butler: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but let us take a case in which it is conceded that the circumstances of the Birkett Committee's Report apply and disclosure to a private tribunal was to be stopped; how else could it be stopped except by relying on a claim for Crown privilege?
Our criticism of the Home Secretary is that, by neglecting to rely on a claim for Crown privilege, be failed to take the only step that was open to him to implement the promise given by the Prime Minister in the House. We feel that the Home Secretary has defaulted not only in his obligation to this House in allowing documents taken for the purpose of trying to detect crime in circumstances in which it was then found that no crime had been committed, but in allowing those documents to be used before a purely private professional tribunal not concerned with the administration of justice but concerned with a domestic offence, an offence of professional misconduct. By his action the Home Secretary has violated the assurance that was given to this House by the Prime Minister.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that this has been a very interesting debate, but it is even more unlike a debate on a Motion of censure than the last debate on a Motion of censure moved by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman had to work very strenuously to bring any censure into his speech at all. The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) attempted to censure my right hon. Friend, but the note of censure was absent from the vast majority of speeches by hon. Members opposite whose speeches were serious and interesting, and moved far outside the narrow range of the terms of the Motion.
Having listened to this debate which has been a serious one on matters of great interest, it seems to me that there are four main questions with which the House would like me to deal. May I summarise them in this way? First, there is the question whether the police were entitled to listen in to the conversation between this lady and the doctor who was subsequently charged before

the Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical Council. Secondly, there is the question raised by the terms of the Motion, whether in this case my right hon. Friend was under a duty to prevent the police from listening in and whether he failed to discharge that duty Thirdly, there is the question whether the evidence obtained by the police should have been made available for production before the Disciplinary Committee and whether my right hon. Friend could and should have prevented that happening. Finally, there is the question whether any party to proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee should have the right to sue out subpoenas to secure the production of such evidence, which was evidence obtained by the police not for the purpose of any proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee but in the course of the discharge of their duties as police officers.
I hope that in those questions I have correctly summarised the issues that have emerged in the course of the debate and the points which are of particular interest to hon. Members who have spoken from both sides of the House. In endeavouring to answer and deal with them, I should like to start with this. We must remember that in 1950 the Disciplinary Committee was charged by Parliament with the duty discharged since 1858 by the General Medical Council of determining whether a registered medical practitioner has been guilty of infamous conduct in any professional respect. This duty which rests on the Disciplinary Committee is an onerous one.
I want to emphasise what has already been said in this debate, that in discharging its duty that Committee acts not just in the interests of the medical profession but in the interests of and for the protection of the public. Just as it is important in the public interest that fraudulent and dishonest lawyers should not be allowed to carry on their profession, so it is important for the protection of the public that doctors guilty of infamous conduct should not be permitted to carry on their careers.
I have thought it necessary to emphasise the public interest in this at the outset of my speech because, if that is accepted, I think that a great many things follow from it. It was as recently


as 1950 that this House decided that any party before the Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical Council should have the right to sue out a subpoena to secure the attendance of a witness or to secure the production of documents. Parliament, in 1950, must have thought that it was essential, in order to secure fair play and justice and a correct determination by the Committee, that parties before it should have that power of securing the attendance of witnesses and of securing the production of documents. The point has been well made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) in the course of a most interesting and, if I may say so, excellent address.
I should have thought that in the case of a body of that sort, which, although it is not trying a man for his life may be trying him for his professional life, Parliament was right in 1950 in thinking that, whatever may be the position of other disciplinary bodies, the parties appearing before that body, whether it be to prosecute, if I may use that word or to defend, should have the right of securing the evidence they want by taking out a High Court subpoena, and that, if they had not that right, injustice might result.
I do not know whether the view of Parliament has changed today with regard to the suing out of subpoenas by that particular body, but I think it is clear from its terms of reference that the question of the right to sue out subpoenas to secure attendance before the Disciplinary Committee, and before any other disciplinary body, will fall for review—and I think it desirable that it should fall for review—by the committee under the chairmanship of Lord Simonds. It may well be the case that while the right to compel attendance before one tribunal is desirable, there is no real need to give that power to compel attendance before another.
The next question is this. The right to sue out a subpoena having been lawfully exercised by what I may call the prosecution in this case—it might have been by the defence—should the police have refused to comply with that subpoena? Could my right hon. Friend have rightly prevented them from doing so? If he could have done that, should he have done so?
Here, I would emphasise that, unlike the Marrinan case, there was no question of handing over voluntarily to an outside body reports of telephone conversations obtained as a result of telephone interception under the warrant of the Secretary of State. This was a case very different from the Marrinan case, and a great many of those who have spoken in this debate have recognised that. There, authority had been given by the Executive to intercept the telephone conversations of a particular individual, and the records of the conversations that Marrinan had with that individual were voluntarily handed to an outside body, and used in evidence against Marrinan. There is all the difference in the world between the interception of all telephone calls of a subscriber at the instance of the Executive and the lifting of a receiver, with the consent of a telephone subscriber, by a policeman in an independent police force not under the control of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Mr. Gordon Walker rose—

The Attorney-General: I would prefer not to give way now. I emphasised that in the Marrinan case there was no question whatsoever of refusing to comply with a subpoena issued out of the High Court. That was the question my right hon. Friend and the police had to consider. It was not just a question whether it should be handed over voluntarily. The answer to that might have been easy. The question was, "Can we refuse? Are there valid grounds for refusing to comply with a subpoena issued out of the High Court?"
I wish to consider that with the House for a moment or two. Under the law, the police are entitled where there is a public prosecution to refuse to disclose the name of an informer on grounds of public policy, unless the judge is of the opinion that disclosure of the name of the informer is necessary or right in order to show the accused's innocence. That was decided in 1890 in the case of Marks v. Beyfus, but that case does not apply here. There was no question here of disclosing the name of an informer. All that was asked for by the subpoena was the production of the shorthand notes for a telephone conversation, about which two other people could testify.
As has been said and freely recognised, in some cases a Minister can assert a claim of Crown privilege. We had a very remarkable and interesting maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) on that point. I listened to my hon. Friend with the greatest interest. I thought for a moment that he was verging on controversiality when he claimed that Southport was the most attractive watering place on the coast of Great Britain.
The effect of putting forward a claim of Crown privilege is to exclude the evidence, no matter which side it tells for, and the result of such exclusion is that perfect justice may not be done. But a Minister is not entitled to claim Crown privilege—he has no right to give instructions to the police to disobey a High Court subpoena—just because he likes to. I emphasise that it was a High Court subpoena in this case. A Minister is not entitled to say that it should be disobeyed just because obedience might be awkward or embarrassing. Apart from Crown privilege, Ministers have no right any more than members of the public, to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts, and the issuing out of a subpoena by the High Court is an exercise of the court's jurisdiction.

Mr. Gordon Walker: This is very important. If a party in such a case as this came across a real full tap in the sense of the Marrinan case and subpoenaed that, could Crown privilege be then used or would the Prime Minister's assurance to us be ignored?

The Attorney-General: If the right hon. Gentleman had waited for a few moments he would have seen that, without his interruption, I was going to deal fully with that point.
It has been laid down—not by a committee, but by the courts, as the hon. Member for Islington, East knows—that it is not right to claim Crown privilege except in cases where the public interest would otherwise be damnified. That is laid down in a reported case, and instances were given. One instance is where the practice of keeping a class of documents secret is necessary for the proper functioning of the public service.
It cannot be said that these shorthand notes would come within any of those categories, or that their disclosure would

be injurious to the public service. The public interest would not be damnified by the disclosure of the shorthand notes of a conversation about which two people are free to testify. Crown privilege is not, as some people seem to think, like a piece of elastic which can be stretched and used whenever a Minister thinks it convenient. It can be used only in very special circumstances. I advised my right hon. Friend that he was not entitled to claim Crown privilege for these shorthand notes. In the light of the law on this subject, I felt that I could not give him any other advice.
If what I have said is right, it follows that my right hon. Friend had no power to compel the Reading police to disobey the subpoena, and no power to prevent the use of the shorthand notes in evidence before the Disciplinary Committee. It is right, also, that the police had no legal ground on which to base a refusal to do so—

Mr. Fletcher: Mr. Fletcher rose—

The Attorney-General: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have a lot to say and if he listens I think that he will find that I shall cover most of the ground.
The Motion before the House seeks to condemn my right hon. Friend for failing to secure that the shorthand notes were not used before the Disciplinary Committee. I hope that I have said enough to show that this part of the Motion is completely misconceived. It seeks to censure my right hon. Friend for failing to do something which, in my view, he had no right whatever to do under the law as it stands today. One of the tasks which the committee will have to consider is whether evidence obtained by the police in the course of their investigations should be made available in proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee. But, I repeat, that as the law stands today, my right hon. Friend had no right to secure the non-production of those notes.
I wish to make clear now—here I am dealing with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Smethwick—that in my opinion a claim for Crown privilege could properly be made for the report of a conversation obtained as a result of telephone interceptions under the Secretary of State's warrant. I say that


for this reason. The Report of the Birkett Committee makes clear that such warrants are issued only in very serious cases, and, in the unlikely event in future of any outside body getting to know of the existence of a report in such a case, I should feel no hesitation in advising that Crown privilege could properly be claimed on the ground that the public interest would be damnified by its disclosure—that the secrecy of such records is necessary for the proper functioning of the public service. That is a very different thing from a shorthand note taken of one conversation as the result of lifting a telephone receiver.
I consider that this Motion is based on the mistaken belief that what happened in this case is covered by, or closely analogous to, what happened and what was reported on by the Birkett Committee. One has only to look at the terms of reference of that Committee to see what a big difference there is. The terms of reference show that the Committee was appointed
to consider and report upon the exercise by the Secretary of State of the executive power to intercept communications
and that Report was based on, and solely concerned with, the issue of a warrant permitting of the interception of a telephone conversation of a particular subscriber.
The right hon. Gentleman has done his best to bring this case within the four walls of that Report and so has the hon. Member for Islington, East. But I think that I am right in saying that nearly every other hon. Member who has spoken on this matter thought that there were distinctions between the cases—even, for once, the hon. Member for Brixton. There is a very valid distinction. It is ridiculous to suggest that a police officer, when asked to lift a telephone receiver, should have to reply, "I really cannot do that without the Secretary of State's warrant."
The Birkett Committee was reporting on telephone tapping. Here, there is no question of that. As has been said before, the shorthand note was taken with the consent and knowledge of one subscriber. There is nothing to stop a subscriber from asking someone to listen to, or agreeing to someone else listening to, a conversation which he or she is to have. I believe that there is nothing to stop a subscriber from fixing up a record-

ing machine so that the conversation is recorded. If, in this case, either of those things had happened there could be no ground for preventing the eavesdropper from obeying the subpoena and no ground for preventing a subscriber from producing the record. Is it really the case that the police should be put in a different position from any other member of the public with regard to listening to a telephone conversation at the request or with the consent of the subscriber?
In this connection, there is a passage in the Report of the Birkett Committee which is pertinent. It was dealing with the other kind of telephone interception. At the same time, it is not irrelevant to this matter and I should like to refer the Committee to it. Paragraph 144 states:
We cannot think it to be wise or prudent or necessary to take away from the Police any weapon or to weaken any power they now possess in their fight against organised crime of this character. The Police ought not to be handicapped in their efforts to prevent or to detect crime, whilst the criminal is allowed to use every modern method to achieve his purpose.
The paragraph concludes—and this is dealing with telephone interceptions:
We therefore think that no useful purpose would be served by recommending that the power of interception be no longer exercised in the detection and prevention of crime, for it would remove from the hands of the Police a weapon which they have found to be effective when all other methods have been unavailing, and would announce to potential wrong-doers that they have nothing to fear from the Police in this particular respect. This, in our opinion, so far from strengthening the liberty of the ordinary citizen, might very well have the opposite effect.
If we accept this principle that no policeman should be able to give evidence of what he has heard from lifting a telephone receiver with the consent of the subscriber, then we are strengthening the power of the criminals at the expense of law-abiding citizens.
My right hon. Friend has reminded the House of his constitutional position with regard to the provincial police. He has at present no power to prevent a policeman listening to a conversation at the request or with the consent of a subscriber. He could, of course, be given that power by Statute. He has not got it now. Legislation might provide that a policeman could only act in that way with his consent and could only then do that act which any other citizen is free to


do without anyone's permission. But before we provide for any kind of legislation of that kind, we should reflect upon the likely consequences. If that were provided, it would be most unlikely that consent would be obtained sufficiently quickly, in which case, as I say, the telephone might well become an instrument of great benefit to the criminal classes.
I am sure that the House will welcome the appointment of the committee to which my right hon. Friend has referred. I should like to say that the very question raised in his powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) as to the use of evidence taken by the police in the course of an investigation into possibly criminal conduct, before bodies of this sort clearly

falls within the terms of reference of that committee.

But when one comes, at the end of the day, to the Motion on which we are about to vote, it really seeks to censure my right hon. Friend for failing to do things which he had no right or power to do. I hope that I have convinced the House that it is utterly misconceived and that the best thing would be for the right hon. Member for Smethwick to follow the recent precedent of his party and withdraw it. But if it is pressed to the vote, with confidence I ask the House to reject it as wholly unfounded and really unworthy of serious consideration.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 336.

Division No. 25.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dodds, Norman
Janner, Barnett


Ainsley, William
Donnelly, Desmond
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Albu, Austen
Driberg, Tom
Jeger, George


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Awbery, Stan
Edelman, Maurice
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)


Baird, John
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Beaney, Alan
Evans, Albert
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshlre, E.)
Finch, Harold
Kelley, Richard


Benn, Hn.A.Wedgwood (Brlst'I,S.E.)
Fitch, Alan
Kenyon, Clifford


Benson, Sir George
Fletcher, Eric
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. Aneurin (Ebbw V.)
Foot, Dingle
King, Dr. Horace


Blackburn, F.
Forman, J. C.
Lawson, George


Blyton, William
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Ledger, Ron


Boardman. H.
Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Lee, Frederick, (Newton)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bowles, Frank
Ginsburg, David
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Boyden, James
Gooch, E. G.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gourlay, Harry
Lipton, Marcus


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Greenwood, Anthony
Logan, David


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Grey, Charles
Loughlin, Charles


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McCann, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Grimond, J.
MacColl, James


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gunter, Ray
McInnes, James


Carmichael, James
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
McKay, John (Wallsand)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mackie, John


Chapman, Donald
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
McLeavy, Frank


Chetwynd, George
Hannan, William
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Cliffe, Michael
Hart, Mrs. Judith
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Collick, Percy
Hayman, F. H.
Mahon, Simon


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Healey, Denis
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)


Cronin. John
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Manuel, A. C.


Crosland,Anthony
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mapp, Charles


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hilton, A. V.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Holman, Percy
Marsh, Richard


Darling, George
Holt, Percy
Mason, Roy


Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)
Houghton, Douglas
Mayhew, Christopher


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Howell, Charles A.
Mellish, R. J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hoy, James H.
Mendelson, J. J.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Emrya (S. Ayrshire)
Millan, Bruce


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Monslow, Walter


Deer, George
Hunter, A. E.
Moody, A. S.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Morris, John


Delargy, Hugh
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Moyle, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Mulley, Frederick


Diamond, John
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Neal, Harold




Oliver, G. H.
Ross, William
Thorpe, Jeremy


Oram, A. E.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Timmons, John


Oswald, Thomas
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Tomney, Frank


Owen, Will
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Skeffington, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin


Pargiter, G. A.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Warbey, William


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Watkins, Tudor


Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Snow, Julian
Weitzman, David


Paton, John
Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Pavitt, Laurence
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Spriggs, Leslie
White, Mrs. Eirene


Peart, Frederick
Steele, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Pentland, Norman
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Stonehouse, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Prentice, R. E.
Stones, William
Willey, Frederick


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Probert, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Williams, Rev. Ll. (Abertillery)



Proctor, W. T.
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Randall, Harry
Swain, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Rankin, John
Swingler, Stephen
Winterbottom, R. E.


Redhead, E. C.
Sylvester, George
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Reid, William
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Woof, Robert


Reynolds, G. W.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Zilliacus, K.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)



Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Thornton, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Bowden and Mr. Short.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cole, Norman
Green, Alan


Aitken, W. T.
Collard, Richard
Gresham Cooke, R.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Cooke, Robert
Grimston, Sir Robert


Allason, James
Cooper, A. E.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Alport, C. J. M.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gurden, Harold


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Arbuthnot, John
Cordle, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Costain, A. P.
Hare, Rt. Hon. John


Atkins, Humphrey
Coulson, J, M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Balniel, Lord
Crichley, Julian
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Barlow, Sir John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Barter, John
Crowder, F. P.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Batsford, Brian
Cunningham, Knox
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Curran, Charles
Harvey, John (Waithamstow, E.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Currie, G. B. H.
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Dance, James
Hay, John


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry
Head, Rt. Hon. Antony


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Goa &amp; Fhm)
Deedes, W. F.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Berkeley, Humphry
de Ferranti, Basil
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bidgood, John C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Biggs-Davison, John
Doughty, Charles
Hendry, A. Forbes


Bingham, R. M.
Drayson, G. B.
Hicks Beach, Mal. W.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
du Cann, Edward
Hiley, Joseph


Bishop, F. P.
Duncan, Sir James
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Blank, Sir Cyril
Duthie, Sir William
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Bossom, Clive
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bourne-Arton, A.
Elliott, R. W.
Hobson, John


Box, Donald
Emery, Peter
Hocking, Philip N.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Holland, Philip


Boyle, Sir Edward
Errington, Sir Eric
Holland-Martin, Christopher


Braine, Bernard
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hollingworth, John


Brewis, John
Farr, John
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Fell, Anthony
Hopkins, Alan


Brooman-White, R.
Finlay, Graeme
Hornby, R. P.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Fisher, Nigel
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia


Bryan, Paul
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Buhard, Denys
Forrest, George
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Foster, John
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Burden, F. A.
Fraser, Hn, Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hughes-Young, Michael


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Freeth, Denzil
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Gammans, Lady
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gardner, Edward
Iremonger, T. L.


Cary, Sir Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Channon, H. P. G.
Glover, Douglas
Jackson, John


Chataway, Christopher
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
James, David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Godber, J. B.
Jennings, J. C.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Goodhart, Philip
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Goodhew, Victor
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Gower, Raymond
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Cleaver, Leonard
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)







Joseph, Sir Keith
Moore, Sir Thomas
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Kaberry, Donald
Morgan, William
Speir, Rupert


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Morrison, John
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Stevens, Geoffrey


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Nabarro, Gerald
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Kershaw, Anthony
Neave, Airey
Stodart, J. A.


Kimball, Marcus
Nicholls, Harmar
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Kirk, Peter
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Storey, S.


Kitson, Timothy
Noble Michael
Studholme, Sir Henry


Lagden, Godfrey
Nugent, Richard
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Lambton, Viscount
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. D.
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Talbot, John E.


Langford-Holt, J.
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Leather, E. H. C.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Leavey, J. A.
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Leburn, Gilmour
Page, Graham
Teeling, William


Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.
Partridge, E.
Temple, John M.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. Alan
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Peel, John
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lilley, F. J. P.
Percival, Ian
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Lindsay, Martin
Peyton, John
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Lloyd, Rt. Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Pitman, I. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Longbottom, Charles
Pitt, Miss Edith
Tlley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Longden, Gilbert
Pott, Percivall
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Loveys, Walter H.
Powell, J. Enoch
Turner, Colin


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Prior, J. M. L.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


McAdden, Stephen
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Vane, W. M. F.


MacArthur, Ian
Profumo, John
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


McLaren, Martin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Vickers, Miss Joan


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Ramsden, James
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Rawlinson, Peter
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Rees, Hugh
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Renton, David
Wall, Patrick


McMaster, Stanley
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)


Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Ridsdale, Jullan
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Rippon, Geoffrey
Watts, James


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Webster, David


Maddan, Martin
Robertson, Sir David
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maginnis, John E.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Whitelaw, William


Maitland, Cdr. J. W.
Robson Brown, Sir William
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Roots, William
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Marlowe, Anthony
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Russell, Ronald
Wise, Alfred


Marten, Neil
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Seymour, Leslie
Woodhouse, C. M.


Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Sharples, Richard
Woodnutt, Mark


Mawby, Ray
Shepherd, William
Woollam, John


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Simon, Sir Jocelyn
Worsley, Marcus


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Skeet, T. H. H.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Mills, Stratton
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)



Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Smithers, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Montgomery, Fergus
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Mr. Redmayne and Mr. Legh.

Orders of the Day — HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Mr. Malcolm MacMillan (Western Isles) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member rise to oppose the Motion?

Mr. MacMillan: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not propose to move the reasoned Amendment standing in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, because, on the initiative of the Opposition, we have had a second day in the Scottish Grand Committee and on the second day we had a more liberal explanation of the meaning and application of the Bill than we had on the first day. We are, therefore, reasonably satisfied that we can make most of the remaining points in Committee, with some comments, with your permission, on the Money Resolution.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the Secretary of State to assist persons wholly or mainly concerned with the provision of sea transport services serving the Highlands and Islands, it is expedient to authorise:—
A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State—

(a) in making advances, or carrying out contracts for the charter of ships, to persons who provide or propose to provide, or

arrange for or assist in or propose to arrange for or assist in the provision of, public transport services (including such services ancillary thereto as are necessary for the proper functioning thereof) provided in an undertaking which consists of, or includes to a substantial extent, the provision of public transport by sea, being services serving the Highlands and Islands, that is to say, the Counties of Argyll, Caithness, Inverness, Orkney, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland and Zetland, inclusive of any burgh situated therein;
(b) in carrying out contracts for the building of ships for acquisition by him, in acquiring ships or in taking ships on charter;
(c) in maintaining, altering, modifying, converting or disposing of ships for the time being held by him.
B. The payment into the Exchequer of any receipts of the Secretary of State under the said Act of the present Session.

—[Mr. Maclay.]

Mr. William Ross: I do not rise to oppose—

The Chairman: Did the hon. Member say that he rises to oppose the Motion?

Mr. Ross: I said that I did not rise to oppose it, Sir Gordon. I rise not in any spirit of opposition, but purely in one of inquisition, to ask whoever, on behalf of the Government, is putting forward the Money Resolution—which, of course, is a sweeping measure of nationalisation—how much they propose under paragraph A(a) to make available to the Secretary of State for the chartering of ships, how much under sub-paragraph (b) for building ships, which, I gather, is what the Government are now doing, how much for acquiring ships to be taken on charter and, under subparagraph (c), how much for
maintaining, altering, modifying, converting or disposing of ships for the time held by him.
May we have an explanation from whoever is responsible for this Money Resolution of what is meant, or what is thought to be meant by the phrase "for the time being held by him."?

10.15 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Further to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), may I ask the Secretary of State how much money it is proposed to spend under this Money Resolution for the purpose of the nationalisation of shipping? I think that we are entitled


to know how much we shall spend no nationalisation of shipping in view of the Government's statements a short time ago.
The question I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman refers to the words in sub-paragraph (a):
includes to a substantial extent, the provision of public transport by sea ".
Do they mean the same as the earlier phrase at the beginning of the Resolution,
mainly concerned with the provision of sea transport"?
Surely there must be a difference. I do not know, but it seems to me that there is a difference of meaning, and that "mainly concerned" means something rather different from "includes to a substantial extent."
I should like to have the right hon. Gentleman's opinion on that because it seems to me that the second phrase ought to have read the same as the first.

Mr. John Rankin: May I ask one or two questions of the Secretary of State about this Money Resolution? I am not opposing the Resolution. I should like to ask whether some of the pledges which were made when the Bill was considered by the Scottish Grand Committee in relation to its principle are covered by this Money Resolution. The Secretary of State will recollect that a Hovercraft was included in the term "vessel".
As the Money Resolution can be taken, I think, as referring almost specifically to sea transport, can we still rely on the pledge which was made that a "vessel" engaged in this work will include a "hovercraft"?

Mr. Hector Hughes: I want to ask about the extent of this Money Resolution, whether it can extend to the improvement of harbours and bridges in harbours.
As the Secretary of State knows, a very serious question has arisen in Aberdeen, about the harbour and the pontoon bridge there, and the ships which serve the islands, not only the islands off the the West Coast but particularly the Islands of Orkney and Shetland. The Orkney and Shetland Steamship Company has threatened to remove its ser-

vice from Aberdeen unless that harbour is improved and unless the pontoon bridge is repaired and improved.
What I want to know is whether these financial provisions are such as will enable some of the money to be made available for the purpose to which I have referred.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Scotland would add to the definition in sub-paragraph (a), which is rather vague, and of which we should like some further explanation. Will he say exactly what these words mean:
including such services ancillary thereto as are necessary for the proper functioning thereof"?
That seems to be going into the realms of metaphysics.
I should like to ask, also, to what extent—and I heard this with some alarm —there is a proposal to extend further into the realm of nationalisation.

The Chairman: Nationalisation is not in the Money Resolution.

Mr. Hughes: I am glad to have that definite assurance from the Chair that there is nothing about nationalisation in the Bill.

The Chairman: I said that there is nothing about nationalisation in the Money Resolution.

Mr. Hughes: It is very difficult to relate this Resolution in any way to the Bill.

The Chairman: We are not dealing with the Bill. We are dealing with the Money Resolution.

Mr. Hughes: There is a further point for elucidation in line 14. I am in some difficulty in voting for the Resolution until we have a clear definition of what financial obligation we are incurring in view of the words:
…being services serving the Highlands and Islands, that is to say, the Counties of Argyll, Caithness, Inverness. Orkney, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland and Zetland"—

The Chairman: Is the hon. Member opposing the Money Resolution?

Mr. Hughes: I have not yet made up my mind, Sir Gordon. It depends upon whether we have a satisfactory explanation.

The Chairman: If the hon. Member has not made up his mind, that is sufficient to make opposition.

Mr. Hughes: I have read the Resolution carefully and I am putting questions because of its vagueness. When I put my geographical difficulties to you, Sir Gordon, you will understand my question, which is whether services to the County of Argyll include services to the Isle of Arran. If you understand the geographical proximity of the Mull of Kintyre in the County of Argyll to the west coast of the Island of Arran, you will understand my difficulty.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any of the expenditure incurred under the Bill will include assistance to a vessel which on he way to Campbeltown in Argyll calls off the west coast of Arran. There is at present a not very adequate service going from Glasgow to Argyll via the west coast of Arran and calling at Loch Ranza and Pernmill. I should like the Secretary of State whether, in this respect, Argyll includes, for financial purposes, he west coast of the Island of Arran.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I should like to make certain that the Money Resolution is wide enough to do some of the things I was asking about in Standing Committee yesterday in connection with paragraph A, which states that
… the Secretary of State—
(a) in making advances, or carrying out contracts for the charter of ships, to persons who provide or propose to provide, or arrange for or assist in or propose to arrange for or assist in the provision of, public transport services (including such services ancillary thereto as are necessary …)".
I do not know why "assist" occurs so frequently.
I believe that the whole success of what the Secretary of State is doing with the Bill, and the things which the Money Resolution is covering, will be based on the ancillaries. We want to know whether the Resolution is wide enough to include ferries between the smaller outer islands, in particular.
The Joint Under-Secretary was fairly forthcoming on this point and said that those who are operating the ferries could make an application. I want to know whether the Money Resolution has been So drafted that the Secretary of State has no doubt that the ferries ancillary

to the main provisions in the Bill as regards the Outer Islands are included. If that is so we must have a complete recognition that the stone jetties must be kept up, so I therefore ask whether the Money Resolution would maintain the landing places on either side of the ferry service.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that we are not filibustering, but that we are trying to elicit information. He is always very suspicious when information is requested, but I hope that he can give us an assurance that the Money Resolution will be wide enough to include the ferry services which are so necessary if the sea services he is bringing in are to be successful.
My second point relates to the building of ships, which is covered by the Money Resolution. Has the Secretary of State any idea of the ceiling which this would place on the price paid for the ships? I assume that they will be similar in character to those in service in the Highlands and Islands. If the Minister could tell us the price which is likely to be paid for each ship built, and which he is prepared to charter to other people, we would have a clearer idea of what the Money Resolution covers.
As regards the Bill—

The Chairman: Order, order. The hon. Member must not discuss the Bill.

Mr. Manuel: I was about to say that the Money Resolution must be related to the figure of £250,000 which is in the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Chairman will tell us.

The Chairman: At the moment we are concerned only with the Money Resolution.

Mr. Manuel: We were informed in the Scottish Grand Committee that the Money Resolution covered a sum of £250,000 for the first financial year.

The Chairman: There is nothing about that in the Money Resolution.

Mr. Manuel: I can agree with you, Sir Gordon, that it ought to be in, but as it is not in we cannot talk about it. In so far as the Money Resolution enables the Secretary of State for Scotland to build ships, what does that mean in money terms?

Mr. M. MacMillan: I wish to ask two questions in respect of the Money Resolution. Perhaps this will render a service to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are equally anxious about the expenditure of the money proposed in that Resolution.
May I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the overall sum in his mind involved in the Resolution? I suspect that he cannot answer this question, but he should have something to tell us, otherwise we shall simply pass a Money Resolution without any knowledge of the limit. I doubt whether there is a limit in the minds of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I should like to know whether there is.
I should also like to underline the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). Can the right hon. Gentleman break down the figure X which is being blindly supported by all of us because we can do nothing else? Can he tell Us what items of expenditure are involved under the general heading of the Money Resolution? Can he say, for example, what is the actual cost per ship, and how many ships are involved? Surely we have a right to ask that question and to receive an answer before we as a responsible Committee pass the Money Resolution.
Have we not a duty to ask the right hon. Gentleman what the limits are under the Resolution to the amount of money which, with the consent of the Treasury, he intends to spend on the ancillary services? We can only assume that the ancillary services are those which are necessary for the running of sea transport services, and these include piers and harbours and bus services connecting with the sea ports. We know that it is intended to cover Hovercraft or air taxi services from the ports, and the ferry services between the smaller islands so that passengers are not left stranded and cannot get home to places like Lochboisdale and Lerwick.
May we have an explanation of what is involved and the expenditure on the ancillary services? I want to be reassured that I am supporting the Resolution for the right reasons, and I want to be strengthened in my support by being given the answers to these questions. It is the duty of the Minister

to give us some idea of the money that will be spent overall and particularly in relation to individual items which come strictly within the Resolution.
I would call attention to the reference to "maintaining" in the Resolution. What is involved? We know that to modernise, alter and maintain H.M.S. "Victorious" may cost up to £20 million. There is a large weekly expenditure on H.M.S. "Britannia". It can be a very costly business to convert a ship. At times, it is even costly to dispose of one. Can we have some idea of what will be spent under this heading, not per ship but in total?
Also, is it intended, under the reference to "acquiring", to deal with existing older ships of the MacBrayne fleet?

Mr. Willis: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Is it not a gross discourtesy to the Committee that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is really responsible for the Money Resolution—

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Willis: But the Financial Secretary—

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order. This is the Financial Secretary's Resolution—

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. MacMillan: I do not feel any sense of deprivation at the absence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I doubt whether he could give more answers than the Secretary of State. I could not put it much lower than that.
In regard to the ancillary services under the Resolution, we know that certain types of aircraft are included. May we know what those types are? I know that Hovercraft are included, but is it limited to them? They are something far the future, whereas we have the existing Herons and, in the near future, the Herald. I imagine that those are the aircraft which will be used in the next few years. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean aircraft in general, and can he say whether he intends to acquire aircraft and to become the owner of nationalised aircraft under another heading, as


he becomes a nationalised shipping owner on our behalf, or on behalf of those people who will make a profit out of the services?
Those are questions which the Committee wants to be asked and which, I am sure, hon. Members opposite would ask if they dared and if it were not so late and the Whips were not looking on. We want to be assured in our support of the Money Resolution so that we can feel that we can conscientiously go to bed tonight and not worry too much about leaving all these new and fairly expensive ships, these new Hovercraft and piers and ferry services in the hands of the new enthusiast for nationalisation, the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Sir Gordon? This Money Resolution is in the name of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. The questions which have been asked—

The Chairman: The Chairman rose—

Mr. Hughes: If you will bear with me for one moment, Sir Gordon, may I say that the questions which have been asked are questions for his Department?

The Chairman: Is the hon. and learned Member objecting to the Money Resolution?

Mr. Hughes: I am asking whether these questions can properly and legitimately be answered by anyone other than the Minister in whose name the Money Resolution is on the Order Paper.

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member is obviously objecting to the procedure, so I must leave the Chair.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. A. Woodburn: On a point of order, Is it in order, on a point of order, for anyone to be opposing a Bill or to be obstructing a Bill in any way?

The Chairman: Objections were made to the procedure.

Mr. M. MacMillan: On a point of order. Is it not a fact that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) was objecting not to the procedure, but to the conduct of the hon. Member?

The Chairman: That is quite sufficient.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. I put to you, Sir Gordon, a matter on which I sought your guidance. This Money Resolution is in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and a number of questions have been asked of him.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order. Mr. Legh.

It being after Ten o'clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding,The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

In pursuance of Section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1939, Sir Robert Cary appointed a Managing Trustee of the House of Commons Members' Fund in the room of Sir Hugh Linstead, resigned.—[Mr. Legh.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING, TOTTENHAM

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

10.38 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I am very glad to have this opportunity of raising the problem of housing in my constituency, especially that part of it which is within the Borough of Tottenham, because the housing problem looms large in Tottenham. I shall confine my remarks in the short time at my disposal to a number of points on which I think that the Minister of Housing and Local Government can give some assistance in alleviating the problem. It is always assumed that local authorities can get on with the job of coping with the housing problems of this country and they have to do the best they can within the limits laid down by the Government; but very seldom do we have an opportunity of asking the Minister for his assistance on specific points.
The first specific matter I wish to put to the Minister relates to slum clearance. Tottenham has a considerable slum clearance programme. There are today 800 families awaiting rehousing from slum clearance schemes, some of which have been approved and some of which are awaiting approval. There may be another 600 or so families within a very short time whose homes are to be represented to the Minister as needing clearance. Very many of these slum clearance houses come within the Wood Green constituency although they are in the Borough of Tottenham.
Unfortunately, a certain slowing down of the slum clearance programme has taken place. I think that this is common throughout the country. In reply to a Question I put to the Minister on 24th November, he said that slum clearance was proceeding at the rate of 60,000 houses a year, and he hoped that it would continue at that rate for the next ten years, which rate would be necessary to deal with the clearance of all slum properties. If there is this general slowing down or a tendency in that direction, obviously, before the present slum houses have been cleared, at the end of ten years, we shall find ourselves with fresh houses needing attention, and

we shall never get the job done. The matter is, therefore, a serious one.
Some of the causes of the slowing down of the programme are the Minister's responsibility. One of them has been rather acute during the summer, namely, the shortage of bricks. I have already drawn the Minister's attention to this as being partly his responsibility because of the cut in the housing programme at the time of the credit squeeze, which led to firms going out of business in the brick industry and, eventually, to a shortage of bricks when the Minister subsequently asked local authorities to expand their programme again. The shortage has eased, but it has meant a slowing down of the programme. In Tottenham, there has been some difficulty with contractors, also.
There is, however, another way in which I think the Minister can help considerably. Slum clearance is not a very straightforward operation. It is not just a matter of pulling houses down. It involves a very complicated dovetailing of clearance with rebuilding, and, very often, all the families from one area have to be divided up into separate groups for rehousing because of the size of their family units. Many of them are often elderly people, who go to special
elderly persons' accommodation All this is a very complicated arrangement. If there is delay in carrying out slum clearance, it can mean considerable additional complications in an already complicated situation.
The Minister has to approve slum clearance schemes. He has to hold an inquiry and then confirm or otherwise whether a scheme is to proceed. It is here, I think, that he could be of great assistance if he could speed up the procedure. It is a common experience that he takes much too long, in the opinion of the local authorities, in, first of all, holding an inquiry and then confirming a scheme. I emphasise that houses are not represented as being ready for clearance until they really are in a rather shocking condition. Therefore, any delay which follows means that families have to continue to live in very bad houses for much longer than they need.
I have here a letter from such a family to illustrate what this means in human terms. They live in property which is to be represented to the Minister very


shortly. The lady gives the address and, writing, as she says, on behalf of her children, she tells me:
I have got four rooms for six children, one boy five girls; two rooms I cannot use fir dampness. All the bedclothes are thick with damp, and I have got the two young children down with bronchitis. I have had the doctor in, and he said it is a disgrace for children to live there. So I have got eight of us in one room".
She cannot use the others because of the dampness.
I have been ill on and off myself. I have had pneumonia and the boy has had it also. The property is very, very old and it is beyond repair and the roof is finished, and now I have got damp coming through in the kitchen, I don't think it is right for young children, for they are still young, and they get no chance in a place like this. I did not want to write to you but I feel I have got to do something …
That is the kind of letter I get over and over again from people who are living in property of this kind. The local authority could make representations about such property more rapidly if the speed of slum clearance could be increased. But instead of being increased it is being slowed down, and this is something about which I think that the Minister could help if he would. Even when the case to which I have referred is represented, it may be something like two years before the procedure is completed, buildings pulled down and the family rehoused.
The problem of homeless families has worried me a good deal. I have raised this matter in the House on previous occasions. No record is kept in Tottenham of the homeless families which have been found accommodation by the council, but it has rehoused hundreds over the last few years. Last year fifty-six such families were referred to the Middlesex County Council. Such cases go to the county council only when it has not been possible to do anything for them locally or with the help of friends and relatives.
The great problem is that such cases are shuttled from one authority to another. The families approach the borough council which often has to say,
"No, we cannot rehouse you, because if we did, it would mean that there would be fewer houses for those on the waiting list for houses." So they go to the county council, which can do very little, because its welfare homes are

chock-a-block with those homeless families who have gone there and remained because there is nowhere else for them to go.
If nothing else can be done for a family, it means that the mother and the children have to go into a temporary hostel for three or four weeks and the father has to find his own accommodation. This often means that the family is broken up. Very often families who have been evicted refuse to take this course, however desperate their condition, because they are afraid of the consequences.
One such case which I referred to the Minister involved the British Transport Commission. I asked the Minister if he could help and I approached the Commission and the local authority. The case went backwards and forwards, and eventually I had a letter from the area welfare officer of the county council who said I should be interested to know that the bailiff went in on 2nd December and enforced an eviction order in the case of this couple who had not been able to find alternative accommodation. The wife is bedridden. Now she has been admitted to a residential establishment and the husband, who has secured temporary lodgings, is endeavouring to find suitable accommodation for himself and his wife. There is no prospect of finding such accommodation and the couple are getting on in years, so that family will be broken up. It seems tragic that this should happen to a bedridden wife who needs the comfort and support of her husband.
In another case the family refused to go to temporary accommodation because they were anxious not to be parted. The husband had been on probation. He was now working hard and keeping the family together with the help of the probation officer. His family were evicted but they refused to be separated and spent several nights walking the streets. Now the wife is in a mental home. The husband is carrying on working, but the probation officer does not know how long he can continue working. The net result will probably be that he will break down again, and, finally, if that happens, that the children will have to go into the care of the county council
That is the sort of thing that happens to these families when no suitable


accommodation can be found for them. It is not anybody's fault. It is not the fault of the borough councils because they have their housing problems. It is not the fault of the county councils because they are doing their best to provide welfare accommodation in great difficulties.
It seems to me that this problem is likely to get worse for the simple reason that in Tottenham, as in other areas, the half-way houses which have been used for the accommodation of homeless families are requisitioned properties, and, as the Minister knows, these requisitioned properties will be given up in March next year. In Tottenham, as in many other places, they will be closed as half-way houses and will go out of existence.
I also understand that in Middlesex one voluntary society which has provided hostel accommodation for the homeless is also giving up that accommodation which, I understand, provided the Middlesex County Council with about eleven places. Therefore, the problem is not getting any easier.
I am asking the Minister to see whether it is possible for his Ministry to look at this problem of homeless families. There are a great many people, welfare officers and officers of voluntary societies who have been running hostels and doing a good deal of social work on these cases, who have a wide experience of the need and of how it can be met.
I really do not think that in this year —we are nearly at the end of 1959—it is economic, humane or sensible to allow these families to be evicted without proper provision being made or real responsibility taken for finding them homes. I do not think that we ought to allow this sort of thing to go on, and so I ask the Minister to give special attention to the problem. I am sure that there are enough people to help the Minister with the problem and to find a solution to it. I believe that one can be found.
Most of these families are evicted through no fault of their own. Even when they are evicted because of arrears of rent, this is sometimes because they have mistakenly withheld rent in order to force the landlords to do repairs. They may have withheld it wrongly, but

sometimes they cannot think of any other way of getting the repairs done.
I ask the Minister particularly to see whether there is any way at all of preventing the eviction of elderly and infirm people. I raised this point both on the Rant Bill and on the Landlord and Tenant Bill. I again ask the Minister to see whether there is any way of amending the legislation so as to prevent the eviction of elderly and infirm people who, in the very nature of things, not only cannot find other accommodation but upon whom the shock of being removed from their homes has very serious effects.
The last point I wish to raise is the problem of the housing waiting list. Tottenham has 4,245 applicants on its housing list. I hope that the Minister is not going to judge from that fact that there has been a sudden improvement in Tottenham's housing position. The last time that I quoted a figure for Tottenham in the House it was very much higher. What has happened is that the borough council has re-examined its housing waiting list, and this figure of over 4,000 is the hard core of its problem.
Comparatively very few families are even taken off the housing waiting list. There are only three ways in which they can come off the list and be rehoused. One is through casual vacancies in existing council houses. Another is if they are lucky eough to get into a new town. As the Minister knows, the new towns are getting towards the end of their building programme to deal with families coming in from outside, and that applies particularly to those towns to which families from the north Middlesex area have been going. The third way is if the council can build outside its borders. There is virtually no building land left inside the Borough of Tottenham, apart from slum clearance. There is a small scheme approved at Cheshunt, but beyond that there is no hope of building outside the county without some assistance.
I have repeatedly asked the Minister whether he will assist Middlesex with the problem of overspill. The Parliamentary Secretary will know that the negotiations for a new town for Middlesex broke down virtually because of the difficulty of establishing the


necessary machinery with the county council, which has no housing powers, and district councils, some of whom were in acute housing need and others of whom were not in such need. There was difficulty in getting a machine which covered those three groups. At present, the attempt to do that has broken down just because of this difficulty.
How does the Minister intend to help overcome this problem of overspill as affecting Tottenham and other Middlesex authorities? Is he prepared to authorise a new town under the New Towns Act? He has refused many times. Is he prepared to reconsider this? If not, his only alternative is to consider whether to increase the density of building in such areas as Tottenham. That would be a retrograde step, and I hope that is not the Minister's solution. If neither of these is his solution, what does he intend to do? This is a problem which cannot be solved by Tottenham unaided. It is a acute problem, and I hope that the Minister will provide an answer.

10.57 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) has left me only a very few minutes in which to cover her meaty, sympathetic and constructive speech. I did not know exactly what she was going to raise, but I came prepared to compliment Tottenham on what it has already achieved in the way of slum clearance. In 1955 Tottenham found that it had nearly 2,200 unfit houses and it proposed to deal with 1,280 in the first five-year period. It has already dealt with 728, which is a very respectable performance.
Slum clearance in this country, particularly where most unfit houses are concentrated, may well take ten years or even more. One must view the problem in perspective. There were originally 850,000 unfit houses. We have already tackled a large number. In ten years we are building probably as many as 3,000,000 new homes, so that the slum clearance problem and the housing of the population should be vastly changed in five, and certainly in ten, years' time.
There is no question whatsoever of a slowing down of slum clearance. The figures this year will be very much the same as those for last year, and we expect

the trend to continue. I accept entirely that slum clearance is a very complex operation, requiring detailed and skilled management to make it successful. If there is occasional delay in my right hon. Friend's Department in approving slum clearance schemes, it is only because the processes of the law require the protection of many citizens' rights. The law lays down certain processes which cannot be hurried. It is true, also, that we are looking at any one time at hundreds of different slum clearance applications, and the inspectorate is often overwhelmed. We are enlarging the inspectorate. If the hon. Lady knows of any particular case of delay, I should be most grateful if she would give me the details, and I will inquire into it.
The question the hon. Lady raised about the homeless is extremely important. I do not desire for a moment to evade it by quoting a circular, but it is a fact that all the things she and I want were made abundantly clear in Circular 17/59 which my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Health issued on 18th March, 1959. It particularly urged local authorities to anticipate any danger of eviction so as to keep the family together and not, if at all humanly possible, permit the family to be broken up. This is especially important where there is an infirm or elderly person in the family, or young children. It is a desperate tragedy if a family has to be broken up in this way, and I assure the hon. Lady that I do appreciate the disastrous consequences that may occur.
Local authorities, through their housing officers, should be able to anticipate such cases and, wherever possible, they should call in one of the public or voluntary services that exist, and which are nearly always able and willing to help and to anticipate trouble, and so avoid such eviction.
For those threatened with eviction from furnished or unfurnished lodgings there are various protections under the Rent Act, or from the rent tribunals, which can often meet cases of hardship. I do not know the case to which the hon. Lady referred. I can assure her that my Department is seeing what can be done, but I am afraid that I can hold out no hope of being able to do a great deal until we know more about it.
These cases of eviction result from the overcrowding that still exists, and


the answer is to get on with building—and I shall come to Tottenham's chances there in a moment. I do not believe that the situation will get worse. It is quite true that Tottenham has done quite well with its derequisitioning programme, and as derequisitioning comes to its climax and final full stop in March of next year, more families will have to change their accommodation. But, at the same time, during that period many more houses will be built.
In the meantime, all I can say about these homeless is that I very much welcome the fact that the hon. Lady had drawn attention to the subject and that I will, in my turn, where necessary draw the attention of local authorities again to the Circular of 18th March, 1959, which sets our the main anticipatory treatment that local authorities are able, and should be willing and ready to give in cases where such tragic circumstances might occur.
I do not believe that in this country, whether through private voluntary bodies or through the public services such as the National Assistance Board, the Ministries, and the Part III accommodation which the local authorities control, there is any lack of resources to deal with this comparatively small number of tragic families—because I think that the hon. Lady will agree that it is a comparatively small number.
I come now to what Tottenham can do to relieve its own overcrowding problem. The housing waiting list there is 4,200, but it is probably fair to say that there is some duplication in that figure with other local authorities. I think that it is probably reasonable to presume that half of them stand in extremely urgent need.
As the hon. Lady knows, there are, at the moment, no less than 500 houses under construction in Tottenham—or for Tottenham. In addition, another 87

houses have been authorised though their construction has not yet begun. On top of that, there are 33 acres available to Tottenham for building, either in the Borough or, as the hon. Lady has rightly said, in Cheshunt. That area should supply another 700 dwellings, at least, so there are now 1,300 houses in hand, or houses for which land is immediately available towards supplying the need of the 2,100 desperately urgent cases on Tottenham's waiting list.
In addition, as the hon. Lady knows, there are facilities for people to go to the new and expanding towns, and I would remind her that Tottenham has already sent 1,500 families either to new towns or to the expanding towns of Bletchley and Swindon. My right hon. Friend and the Government supply a subsidy for people moving to new and expanding towns, and I would only ask her to urge her local authority to do one more thing that it has not been doing with its normal vigour, and that is to build more for old people. That, too, attracts subsidy and, in addition to helping the old people, often releases for others from overcrowded dwellings accommodation that the old people have not been fully using.
Therefore, to the hon. Lady and to the old people for whom she speaks, I would offer the hope that lies in the fact that Tottenham has already very nearly 600 houses under construction and land for another 700. I would add that by slum clearance, new towns and expanding towns—quite apart from the vast surge of private building which, though it does not necessarily go to those who are worse off does release accommodation for them—there is ample hope that the progress already achieved will speed up, and bring quick satisfaction to those now on Tottenham's waiting list.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Eleven o'clock.